History of Methodist reform, synoptical of general Methodism, 1703-1898 ; with special and comprehensive reference to its most salient exhibition in the history of the Methodist Protestant church

ALNUTT MEMORIAL CHURCH AND PARSONAGE,
BALTIMORE, MD.

HISTORY

OP

METHODIST REFORM

SYNOPTICAL OF GENERAL METHODISM
1703 to 1898

WITH SPECIAL AND COMPREHENSIVE REFERENCE TO ITS MOST
SALIENT EXHIBITION IN THE HISTORY OF THE

METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH

BY

EDWARD J. DRINKHOUSE, M.D., D.D.

(EIGHTEEN YEAKS EDITOR OF " THE METHODIST PROTESTANT ")

Ad astra per aspera

" Power combined with interest and inclination cannot be con-
trolled by logic. But even power shrinks from the test of logic."

" I lay it down as an axiom that the religious liberty of a
people should never be reduced below the standard of their civil
liberty." —Nicholas Snethen.

The equity of all history is : Hear the other side. — The
Author.

VOLUME II

THE BOARD OF PUBLICATION

OF THE METHODIST PROTESTANT CHURCH

WM. J. C. DULANY, Agent, Baltimore, Md.

F. W. PIERPONT, Agent, Pittsbuegh, Pa.

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1899,

By EDWAKD J. DKINKH0U3E,

In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D.C.

NorfoooB 33wsa

J. S. dishing St Co. — Berwick & Smith
Norwood Mass. U.S.A.

CONTENTS

VOL. II
CHAPTER I

PAGE

1820 — History as reflecting the individuality of the author — The Gen-
eral Conference of 1820 ; great question of this Conference, the
Elective Presiding Eldership ; how it was carried by a two-thirds
vote ; the joint veto of M'Kendree and Soule overrides the two-thirds
and demonstrates the superiority of the bishopric over the General
Conference ; an expose of the whole business as never before set
forth; the strategy and the "dark lantern" proceedings by which
the ruling was " suspended " — Other Conference proceedings . 1

CHAPTER II

1820-1823 — The defeat of the Eldership matter was the seed of the
Reform of 1827-30 — Stockton's Wesleyan Repository in 1821 —
The local preachers' contention and its damage to the lay-represen-
tation movement — First public Reform meeting in Cincinnati,
August 19, 1823 ; Ezekiel Cooper's plan ; early Reformers . . 19

CHAPTER III

1823-1825 — Defeat of the Reform preachers to the General Conference
of 1824 ; how and why ; the Episcopal Address moulded to kill the
Reform memorials by anticipation — T. E. Bond and Thomas Kelso
as Reformers — Means by which the "suspended" resolutions were
disposed of — Soule and Heddhig elected sectional bishops; secret
reasons no delegate was sent to the British Conference — Eminent
Reformers 46

CHAPTER IV

1824-1826 — Lay rights denied by the late General Conference; the
whole question traversed and full statement for both sides — The
Repository discontinued ; reasons for it — The Mutual Rights in-
augurated in Baltimore, 1824 ; both sides admitted to its columns ;
spread of the "Union Societies " — Contributors to several volumes
of the Mutual Rights; first expulsions in Tennessee; the Stillwell
Reformers of 1820 64

IV CONTENTS

CHAPTER V

1824-1827 — Reform in North Carolina fully considered; prosecutions
and expulsions — Prosecutions resumed in Baltimore ; effort to unify
the Reformers ; a Convention called in Baltimore to this end, No-
vember, 1826 — Analysis of Dr. Bond's character — Christian Advo-
cate, issued September, 1826 ; a battery against Reform ; bishops'
meeting in 1827 — Reform Convention in Baltimore, November,
1826; "Union Societies" and Wesley's "United Societies" kin-
dred ; Bascom vindicated as a Reformer 84

CHAPTER VI

1827 — Agitation following the Reform Convention ; Baltimore a camp
of Methodist spies ; Dennis B. Dorsey suspended and then expelled ;
graphic account of it ; it rouses Reformers with Bascom in the lead
— Alexander McCaine looks into the Episcopacy and makes dis-
coveries and raises a new issue — Dr. Bond's "Appeal to the Metho-
dists" 101

CHAPTER VII

1827 — Dr. Bond's "Appeal" drew the line between Reformers and
Anti-Reformers ; Bond manipulates for expulsions ; methods ; eleven
local preachers and twenty-two laymen expelled in Baltimore ;
McCaine outlawed and expelled ; outside community indignant ;
Bond tries to mollify by his "Narrative" and "Defence"; Re-
formers held to a principle, Anti-Reformers to the power, and so
could not understand each other 119

CHAPTER VIII

1827 — General Convention of Reformers in Baltimore, 1827 — Full
account of it; address to the General Church, and memorial to the
General Conference ensuing— Dr. Bond calls a halt of expulsions;
the Dr. Green plot — The Baltimore district conference dissolved by
the vote of colored members; its significance at the time; immorality
question considered 135

CHAPTER IX

1827-1828 — The General Conference of 1828; the Dr. Brown and
Bishop George question fully considered ; Shinn's defence of Dor-
sey and Pool before the Conference ; guileful compromise proposed ;
another dark-lantern caucus to secure the ratification of the expul-
sions ; final disposition of the "suspended resolutions" ; Emory's
tergiversations; change of the Restrictive Rule for altering the
so-called Constitution of the Church 148

CONTENTS

CHAPTER X

1828 — Analysis of the Report of the General Conference on lay peti-
tions written by Emory and prompted by Bond — A careful and
thorough review of McCaine's " History and Mystery," and of Dr.
Emory's *" Defence of Our Eathers," and McCaine's rejoinder;
Dr. Stevens's famous chapter on the ordination of Dr. Coke in his
History, considered and disposed of ; McCaine's positions never
successfully controverted 167

CHAPTER XI

1828 — Effect of the action of the General Conference on Reformers of
several grades; Dr. Buckley on "rights" and on "withdrawal"
of Reformers analyzed — Formal organization of Reformers in Balti-
more at St. John's Church ; the " Methodist " Church of Pittsburgh ;
priority ; Reform in Cincinnati as early as 1822 ; Truman Bishop ;
organizations elsewhere — The Mutual Bights with Dorsey as editor,
1828-29 192

CHAPTER XII

1828-1830 — Second Convention of Reformers in Baltimore, November,
1828 ; full account ; Articles of Association ; organizing agents
appointed to travel in the interest of Reform until 1830 ; committee
in the interval to draft a Constitution and Discipline for the new
Church ; proposal to have a General President rejected ; action
since 205

CHAPTER XIII

1830-1831 — Who is responsible for the new Church ? — The property
question fully analyzed; the case of the Georgetown, D. C, Re-
formers, a type of others ; Reform crippled for want of preachers ;
camp-meetings — Dr. Bond resumes persecutions of Reformers and
Reform ; starts the Itinerant ; an analysis of it fairly put for the
three years of its continuance 216

CHAPTER XIV

1828-1830 — History of the formation of Annual Conferences from
1828-30 — Evans's " Question and Answer Book on Church Polity,"
known as "yellow jackets" — Snethen as a travelling organizer —
First Auxiliary Superannuated Society ; the Phoabian of St. John's,
Baltimore ; success of the new Church ; Bascom prepares his " Sum-
mary of Rights," for the new Church Constitution; its history;
full text of it in Appendix I, first volume 235

VI CONTENTS

CHAPTER XV

1830 — Third Convention of Reformers in Baltimore, November, 1830 ;
history of it ; centrifugalists and centripetalists formed two parties ;
analogous parties in the United States' Convention of 1787 ; logical
philosophy of " Church " and " churches " ; who finally signed the
Constitution ; history of certain articles 252

CHAPTER XVI

1830-1834 — The new Church must prove its right to exist — The
Methodist Correspondent established at Cincinnati ; the new Church
growing at the rate of fifty to one hundred per cent yearly ; new
organizations in many directions — Pastoral Address of the M. E.
General Conference of 1834 ; slanderously attacks the new Church

— The Methodist Protestant, Gamaliel Bailey, editor; The Corre-
spondent removed to Pittsburgh ; then to Zanesville — Secession in
Charleston, S.C., from the old Church 279

CHAPTER XVII

1834-1838 — The General Conference of 1834 ; sketch of it ; the Book
Concern and losses under Harrod — The Methodist Correspondent
in its sixth and last volume — New plan for the Book Concern —
The Second General Conference of 1838 ; full account of it ; salient
business ; slavery question revived ; compromise through Dr. Brown

— T. H. Stockton elected editor of the Baltimore Official as a " free "
paper ; the Book Committee contest, and the upshot . . . 294

CHAPTER XVIII

1838-1842 — The year of 1839 a year of great prosperity to the new
Church — Lawrenceburg College burned; obituaries of Reformers
increasing — The Third General Conference of 1842 ; history of it —
Dr. Bond, editor of the New York Christian Advocate, rampant —
The St. John's church, Baltimore, "mission" controversy, and
damaging results 312

CHAPTER XIX

1842-1846 — Dr. Webster, editor of the Baltimore paper; New Jersey
Conference set oft — General Conference of the M. E. Church, in
1844 ; sketch of it ; the division ; what it meant, and how under-
stood— Proposal to establish Snethen Seminary at Iowa City —
Paris's " Church History " — Fourth General Conference at Cincin-
nati, 1846 ; slavery discussion intensified by the division of the old
Church; the Philadelphia "mission" question ; growth of the new
Church under difficulties; Bishop M'Tyeire's estimate of the Re-
form Church dissected 333

CONTENTS vii

CHAPTEK XX

PAGE

1846-1850 — B. Yeates Reese reelected editor of the Baltimore paper ;
new Conferences — Fraternity inaugurated with the old Church at
their General Conference of 1848 — Madison College tendered the
new Church ; brief history of the misadventure ; college started at
Lynchburg, Va. ; also at Cambridge, O. ; the latter destroyed first
by a storm and then by fire — Rev. W. "W. Hill deceased ; sketch
of him 353

CHAPTER XXI

1850 — The Fifth General Conference of 1850 in Baltimore; sketch of
it ; Madison College accepted ; Steubenville selected for the next
Conference, by the narrow vote of twenty-four to twenty-three —
Statistics show but a small net gain ; significance of it ; the same
true of the M. E. Church ; the Book Concern report the most favor-
able ever made ; E. Yeates Reese unanimously reelected editor —
The Constitution of the new Church a success after twenty years'
trial 364

CHAPTER XXII

1850-1854 — The Board of Missions stirs itself and makes tentative
efforts for China and Oregon — The great Wesleyan Methodist
Reform culminates with a vast secession — The laity in the M. E.
Church aroused, and mass-meetings held for lay-delegation in vari-
ous cities, but as usual it came to nothing, as officialism frowned it
down — Obituaries of early Reformers ; the McGehee College in
Alabama opened, and Dr. A. A. Lipscomb elected President — Dr.
T. E. Bond reelected editor of the New York Christian Advocate to
stem the rising tide of lay-delegationists in that Church — Death of
Asa Shinn 373

CHAPTER XXIII

1854-1857 — The Sixth General Conference of 1854; digest of its
doings ; conservative report on the slavery question, from a com-
mittee of Northern brethren ; a plan for the division of the Book
Concern reported and adopted ; intended as a peace measure ; new
hymn book ordered ; statistics ; the new Church a success from the
figures; obituaries 386

CHAPTER XXIV

1854-1858 — Dissatisfaction with the plan to divide the Book Concern,
but the respective Conventions of Conferences met and it was con-
summated; history of them — Agitation in the Western paper on

yiii CONTENTS

PAGE

slavery ; menaces of separation from the East and South ; steps
taken ; Lynchburg College and its finality ; Yadkin College, North
Carolina ; agitation of slavery in the old Church ; signs of disunion
in the States 408

CHAPTER XXV

1858 — The Seventh General Conference at Lynchburg, Va. ; the over-
shadowing business the Memorial from the Cincinnati Convention
of the North and West setting forth their ultimatum, or "suspen-
sion" of official relations with the East and South ; full history of
it; incidental business — Interesting proceedings in the Episcopal
Methodisms — Separation of the North and West consummated . 422

CHAPTER XXVI

1858-1862 — Double history of the Conferences North and West, and
those of the East and South — Abel Stevens rebuked by the General
Conference of the old Church for liberal views ; defeated for the
editorship of the New York Advocate; the New York Methodist
established by Crooks and M'Clintock, as organ of lay-delegation
— Conventions in Pittsburgh and Cincinnati respectively, fully
reported — The Civil War inaugurated 438

CHAPTER XXVII

1862-1866 — General Conference of the Methodist Protestant Church in
1862 ; default of attendance — General Conference of May, 1865 ;
its action — The Wesleyans and the brethren North and West begin
an ecclesiastical courtship — Regular General Conference at George-
town, D. C, in May, 1866; what it did — Methodist "Union" now
in the air — Western Maryland College 456

CHAPTER XXVIII

1866-1867 — The Non-Episcopal Methodist Convention of the North and
West in 1866 ; history of it in full ; its default through the infidelity
of Wesleyans — -Dissentients in North Carolina recognized by the
"Methodist" Church — More general "Union" schemes specially
from the Church, South ; what they meant 472

CHAPTER XXIX

1867 — The Montgomery Convention of May, 1867 ; the overshadowing
business the proposal of the Church, South, of Union ; full history
of it ; ecclesiastical finesse ; died of inanition — Holston Conference
organized — Sunday-school demonstration in Baltimore — General
Conference of the "Methodist" Church at Cleveland, 1867; the
Wesleyans not present ; Adrian College transferred to the " Metho-
dist" brethren legally 485

CONTENTS ix

CHAPTER XXX

PAGE

1867-1871 — Dissevered Methodist Protestants coming together — The
Tenth General Conference of the Church in Baltimore, May, 1870 ;
its personnel ; report on Fraternal Delegations ; other proceedings
— Secession to the M. E. Church, South, from the Virginia, Alabama,
and Mississippi Conferences ; full history in each case ; a preacher
movement — J. J. Amos of Indiana makes a gift of $21,000 to
Adrian College ; obituaries of Reformers ; Western Book Concern
removed to Pittsburgh 500

CHAPTER XXXI

1871-1874 — General Conference of the "Methodist" Church, May,
1871 ; union suggested by the fraternal messengers from Maryland,
Rev. Dr. J. T. Murray and Rev. Thomas McCormick ; reciprocated
— The Virginia Conference of 1871, at Norfolk, Va.; full history of
its doings — The General Conference at Lynchburg, Va., May, 1874 ;
what it did as to the brethren West and North ; reconstruction of
the Baltimore Book Concern — A perilous period of the Church his-
tory ; moral heroism of its preachers and laity 515

CHAPTER XXXII

1874-1876 — General Conference of the " Methodist " Church at Prince-
ton, 111., May, 1875; more fraternity from the other Methodisms ;
Commissioners appointed by the " Methodist" Church to meet like
Commissioners of the Methodist Protestant Church to formulate a
plan of Union ; what it did ; a General Convention called for Balti-
more, May, 1877— The M. E. General Conference of 1876 ; homily
on its system 535

CHAPTER XXXIII

1876-1877 — Preparations for the General Convention of the two
Churches now assured by the vote of the respective Annual Con-
ferences — It assembled May 11, 1877, in Baltimore ; roster of
members in each separate Convention in different churches of the
city ; final action of each ; reunion at Starr church and the General
Convention, with full account of its proceedings ; new Constitution
and Discipline formed ; General Conference called for Pittsburgh,
May, 1880 ; statistics of the reunited body 553

CONTENTS

CHAPTEE XXXIV

PAGE

1077-1880 — History of the Annual Council ; new Church life inspired
by the union of 1877 ; official editors traverse the Southwest, visiting
Conferences — The Bible School Series inaugurated in Baltimore
and successfully carried forward ; Rev. J. B. Walker's agency of
Western Maryland College ; disposal of its $25,000 debt ; great
success of the reunited Church — General Conference of the M. E.
Church, 1880 ; lay-delegation 573

CHAPTER XXXV

1880-1884 — Thirteenth General Conference at Pittsburgh, May, 1880 ;
what it did ; organization and recognition of the Women's Foreign
Missionary Society, and what it did ; unification of the publishing
interests ; a plan from the Baltimore Directory adopted ; other
doings of this Conference ; Ecumenical Conference in London,
1881 — Theological Seminary at Westminster inaugurated by Rev.
Dr. T. H. Lewis ; a homily on Church fidelity 584

CHAPTER XXXVI

1884-1886 — The Fourteenth General Conference, Baltimore, May,
1884; it is called a "General Convention," but it was such for
specific purposes only — Cumberland Presbyterian Union, as well
as the Congregational Methodist Union defaults by the disfavor of
officialism ; ordination of women considered ; instances and legal
effect — Centennial Conference of the Episcopal Methodisms, com-
missioners sent ; organic union a dream — Obituaries of Reformers . 610

CHAPTER XXXVII

1888-1891 — Comparison of statistics for the first fifty years of the
M.E. and the M. P. Churches — General Conference of the M. E.
Church ; women delegates and lay-delegation before it — Fifteenth
General Conference at Adrian, May, 1888 ; committee of nine to
revise the Articles of Religion ; statistics — Obituaries of Reformers ;
the Heathsville, Va. , church case ; the Christian Endeavor move-
ment in the Church 631

CHAPTER XXXVIII

1891-1896 — Second Ecumenical Methodist Conference, and what came
of it — Sixteenth General Conference, Westminster, May, 1892 ; the
women question again — The search for a "Constitution" in the
M. E. Church unavailing — Obituaries of Reformers ; Br. Mather's
bequest to Kansas City, Kan., University — Great meetings of lay-
men in the M. E. Church demanding lay-delegation . . . 651)

CONTENTS xi

CHAPTEE XXXIX

PAGE

1896-1898 — Seventeenth General Conference, Kansas City, Kan.,
May, 1896 ; reelection of Dr. Hering as President ; corner-stone
laying of the University ; H. J. Heinz's gift of $10,000 to the
University; great increase of the Church's Y. P. S. of C. E.; in-
corporation of the General Conference ; overtures to the Annual
Conferences ; excellent financial exhibits of the General Boards ;
statistics show a net gain of nearly twenty -seven per cent in mem-
bers, and of nearly twenty-five per cent of church property ; a re-
markable showing for any denomination — Obituaries — Kesult of
overtures to the Conferences 670

CHAPTER XL

Argumentative summation : — Have the postulates of the introductory
chapter been proven ? — Ideals in polities : Individualism vs. Pater- '
nalism — The Methodist Protestant polity ideally set forth ; defects
subjective and objective ; may be remedied, but Paternalism a sea
of unrest and can never be quieted — Proofs that a voting, lay-repre-
sentative Church has succeeded, other things being equal, as well as
a non-voting, clerically governed Church ; liberal Methodism a suc-
cess both in England and America; upshot of the whole matter;
prognostications 686

Index 709

ILLUSTRATIONS

VOLUME II

P.4.QB

Alnutt Memorial Church and Parsonage, Baltimore

Frontispiece

Dennis B. Dorsey 104

St. John's Church, Baltimore 139

Group of Starr, Reese, and Reese 149

First Methodist Protestant Church, Pittsburgh . . 198

Group of Hopper, McCormick, and Waters .... 255

Group of Collier, Bassett, and Brown 299

Group of Paris, Gray, and Wills 342

Group of Robison, Thrapp, and Burns 355

Group of Clawson, Nestor, and Laishley .... 409

Western Maryland College 470

Joel S. Thrap 478

Thomas H. Stockton 501

Adrian College, Michigan 518

Westminster Theological Seminary 598

Mission School at Yokohama, Japan 616

Shizuoka Mission Chapel and School, Japan . . . 654

Annual Conference of Japan 658

Seventeenth General Conference of 1896 at Kansas City,

Kansas 671

University of Kansas City, Kansas 674

J. T. Ward 679

J. J. Smith 686

xm

HISTOEY OF METHODIST EEFOKM

CHAPTER I

History as reflecting the individuality of the author, with application — The Gen-
eral Conference of 1820 ; how composed ; McCaine, Secretary though not a mem^
ber — Great question of this Conference ; the elective presiding eldership as
carried, and its defeat by the joint veto of M'Kendree and Soule overriding
the two-thirds majority, thus demonstrating the superiority of the Episcopacy
over the General Conference which had created it — An exhaustive expose of
all the steps open and covert, which from beginning to ending of the Confer-
ence marked the determination of the contending parties; M'Kendree and less
than a third of the Conference against Bishops George and Roberts and over
two-thirds of the Conference; the strategy employed, and the dark-lantern
proceedings that in the end secured the " suspension " of the adopted measure
— Other proceedings.

The late James Anthony Froude, the English historian, em-
ployed in one of his lectures a striking illustration of historical
methods : " It often seems to me as if history was like a child's
box of letters, with which we can spell any word we please. We
have only to pick out such letters as we want, arrange them as
we like, and say nothing about those that do not suit our purpose."
An equally striking exposition of his meaning is thus given:
" Much so-called history has been written from this receipt no
doubt, not so much because men do not regard the suppressio veri
with as stern condemnation as the expressio falsi, as that man's
vision is so easily limited by insufficient knowledge and so often
distorted by party passion." The facts thus reflected have led to
the adage, that there is nothing so false as history. The phe-
nomenal thing about them is, that they apply quite as forcibly
and truthfully to ecclesiastical as to political history. One neces-
sary reason for it is that the facts of the past, in given groups,
have more than one side, and not unfrequently are many-sided.
The individuality of the writer is the controlling factor, and his
point of view is made the objective. The reader of history
naturally and reasonably expects to find deductions, the assump-
tion being that next to participation in them, full possession of

2 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

the facts furnishes a vantage not to be lost, whatever the reader's
final verdict may be.

The volume just closed has been written on this theory, the
writer not claiming exemption from the common infirmity of his-
toriographers. What is claimed is that Methodist Eeform as a
general question, and the Methodist Protestant Church as a par-
ticular instance, have suffered through the pens of writers partial,
if not partisan, in their favor of the old regimes of Methodism,
and that the truth of history demands that the group of facts
defensive of the former, and hitherto suppressed, minified, or
construed, should be uncovered, coordinated, and depicted in full
proportions ; and if the critical reader thinks he discovers any
undue coloring, the insistence is that it does not more than neu-
tralize like effects in the other class of writers. It is believed,
with as much modesty as the nature of the subject admits, that
the postulates of the first volume have been sustained ; that much
information never hitherto published, either because unsuited to
the objective of the writer or inaccessible to him, has been brought
to light ; that no source of information or professed authority has
been neglected ; and that much fuller force has been allowed oppos-
ing facts and inferences than has been given by standard historians
and monographists. If a portly volume has been filled before
reaching the General Conference of 1820, the inciting cause of
the great lay-representative movement of the succeeding decade,
it has been because the heroic of a common Methodism, as well
as the whole line of historic facts, belong to Keformers as well,
and specially because, as has been made evident, no history of
the Methodist Protestant Church can be written, logically stated
and philosophically treated, that does not take into account kin-
dred movements and the general trend of Methodism. Prom
1820 onward the Reform agitation, progress, culmination, and
status shall receive paramount attention, and, having a heroic
period of its own, economy of space, as well as emergence from
such a period in the past, will dismiss from these pages the
history of the Methodist Episcopal Church except as a counter
illustration and necessary factor.

The General Conference of 1820 met in Baltimore, May 1 1820,
in Eutaw Street church. It was composed of eighty-nine mem-
bers and the three bishops, — M'Kendree, George, and Roberts.
Eleven were from New York Conference, ten from New England,
seven from Genesee, eight from Ohio, three from Missouri, two
from Mississippi, six from Tennessee, nine from South Carolina

VOLUME FIB ST AND SECOND — HOW BELATED 3

eight from Virginia, nine from Baltimore, and fourteen from
Philadelphia. A full list is given by Bangs, and it shows the
names of most of the leading preachers of the day. M'Kendree
opened the Conference and submitted his Address, and stated
that, owing to his feeble health, he would not be able to preside,
but would assist his colleagues as far as possible. Alexander
McCaine was elected Secretary, though not a member of the Con-
ference, following a precedent already set. It was a high com-
pliment to his ability and integrity. Turning aside from minor
matters, the objective of this History is reached by a careful con-
sideration of the great questions which were passed upon by this
Conference : the elective presiding eldership and the supremacy
of the Bishopric over the General Conference, as an interpreter
of so-called constitutional law, the first as a finality, and the second
accepted until reversed by the General Conference of 1844. The
former had been thoroughly discussed in the Annual Conferences
and in private correspondence since the death of Asbury, and
nearly all the delegates came to Baltimore, as well as the bishops,
with well-defined views, and with most of them under no con-
cealment. Snethen was present as a spectator, and furnishes
important information about it. He was now located on his
farm in Frederick County, Md., and was not, perhaps, among the
eligibles as a delegate, though he himself says, writing in 1822 :
" It is now nearly twenty years since I resolved never to enter a
General Conference to make laws for others without their consent.
In one instance, indeed, I broke this resolution (1808); but it
affords me no self-complacency." He also tells how the three
bishops stood on the first question, and by implication the last
as well : " We have three bishops ; one of them [M'Kendree] says
the giving of power to the Annual Conferences in the choice of
presiding elders is unconstitutional. A second [George] says it is
not; and a third [Roberts] used the term without any precise
technical meaning. He grants that the change will take from
the episcopacy some of its former power, but he is willing to part
with it. Of course he believes there is nothing in the restrictions
to prevent the Annual Conferences from electing presiding elders.
The discipline does not guarantee to the bishops the power of
appointing the presiding elders. The zeal and perseverance of
the first bishop, it seems, were thought to be worthy of a vote
of thanks, which, it is said, was accordingly given by an Annual
Conference. It becomes a question whether there is any appear-
ance of evil in this transaction. Though it is a matter of some

4 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

delicacy to say in what degree, if any, it betrays an appearance
of want of wisdom and candor. Neither the bishop himself, nor
anybody else, ever pretended to show a single letter of authority.
Their constitution is only implied or inferred; that is, it is a
matter of opinion. The opinions of the bishops as well as the
preachers differ, and a conference who coincide with one of them
in opinion give him a vote of thanks for thinking as they do.
Does not this look very much like a vote of no thanks to those
who dared to think for themselves, though their way of thinking
went to take power out of their own hands? "

Bishop M'Kendree in his Address gave his own decisive
opinion, and it became the cue for those who ranged themselves
with the minority. That the Bishop's expression of opinion was
intended to forestall legislation there can be no doubt. This is
his dictum : " The General Conference of 1808, satisfied with the
principles and utilities of the system, constituted a delegated
Conference, and by constitutional restrictions ratified and per-
petuated our system of doctrines and discipline, and the rights
and privileges of all the preachers and members ; in a word, all
the essential parts of the system of government. It is presumed
that no radical change can be made for the better at present."
Again: "Among so many, should some, for purposes of profit, or
ease, or honor, require, as in the days of old, an injurious change
in our well-tried and approved system of government, their mis-
guided wishes, it is hoped, will be overruled by your wisdom and
prudence, to whose patronage this invaluable treasure is so con-
fidently committed."1 He knew full well that shields of the
mighty would be locked in the polemical fray soon to occupy the
Conference. He knew the divergent opinions of his colleagues,
lie knew that when the body came to " strengthen the episcopacy "
at his request, it was important that his own choice should be
the choice of the Conference, and thus settle in his favor the
contest, now joined between the constitutionalists and the anti-
constitutionalists over the enactment of 1808. He knew that the
full weight of his episcopal power and patronage must be thrown
into the scale for Soule, who reserved his strength for the final
tussle, well advised no doubt by M'Kendree of the policy they
would mutually pursue. He knew full well that stigmatization,
when pronounced by authority, is a weapon most effective, and
hence his unseemly imputation of motive, — "for purposes of
profit, or ease, or honor, "as instigating "their misguided wishes."

i Paine's " Life of M'Kendree," pp. 292-300, for the full Address.

GENERAL CONFERENCE OF 1820 5

In this, however, he only followed his exemplar, Asbury, who
dealt in stronger imputation of O'Kelly's motives, as already
cited. The reading of it in M'Kendree's Address must have
stung to the quick the large majority, who listened to it in
silence, but unawed as to their purpose. Before passing from
this Address, a reference in the conclusion of it must be cited
for future use: "The 'Life of Bishop Asbury,' which in conse-
quence of affliction and a press of business was not presented to
the last General Conference, is now in a state of forwardness, and
is recommended to your patronage." M'Kendree having found
it impossible to prepare it, the Baltimore Conference engaged
Dr. Samuel K. Jennings to write it, and a hundred or more pages
were completed at that time. The Bishop's thorough indorse-
ment of him and the work by this reference is to be noted.

Passing incidental business of the Conference for the first week,
during which time the respective forces were caucusing and pre-
paring for the fray on the elective presiding elder question, it was
introduced early in the second week by T. Merritt of New Eng-
land and Beverly Waugh of Maryland, proposing that the answer
to the question, " By whom are the Presiding Elders to be chosen? "
be, " By the Conference." It was discussed for two days, twenty-
one speaking, thirteen of them in favor. Ezekiel Cooper, one of
the affirmative, now moved that it lie on the table, for the purpose
of bringing forward a motion which he believed would accommo-
date both parties. It was that the bishops should nominate three
times the number of presiding elders to be elected, out of which
number the Conference should elect. Considerable debate ensued
upon it, when William Capers and Nathan Bangs moved the ap-
pointment of a committee of three from each side to confer with
the bishops on the subject. George was in the chair, and ap-
pointed Ezekiel Cooper, John Emory, and Nathan Bangs for the
alteration, and S. G. Roszel, Joshua Wells, and William Capers
for the present form. They met the bishops, but without result,
and another meeting was appointed for the next morning. This
meeting was not attended by either Emory or Cooper, and nothing
was done. Why did they not attend? No explanation is given,
so it is open to conjecture, and it is that the arbitrary stand of
M'Kendree forbade self-respecting men to take the risk of a second
rebuff. At noon of the next day Bishop George requested the
committee to meet him in the gallery of the church, and, after
some explanations as to the bearing of the accommodation plan,
he pronounced himself as in its favor. On it the committee

6 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

united, the report being written by John Emory.1 It was brought
forward at the afternoon session, and passed by a vote of sixty-
one to twenty-five, or more than two-thirds. The report as passed
also included the decision, " that the presiding elders be, and are
hereby made, the advisory council of the bishop or president of
the Conference in stationing the preachers." While the matter
was in the hands of the committee, or on the 9th of May, action
was taken on the Bishop's Address as to strengthening the epis-
copacy, and it was resolved that " it is expedient that one addi-
tional General Superintendent be elected and ordained by this
General Conference." On the 13th the election took place, there
being only one member of the body absent, so that on counting
the votes eighty-eight were reported, of which number Joshua
Soule received forty-seven and Nathan Bangs thirty-eight, with
three scattering votes. Soule was declared elected.

Taking up the action on the eldership where it was left, the
Journal of the Conference shows that immediately thereafter
Soule obtained leave of absence. The issue was joined. Did
he consult M'Kendree? Who can doubt it? Their concert of
action is proof. In this interval he prepared and delivered to
Bishops George and Boberts the notable letter in which he made
issue with the General Conference. It may be found in full in
Tigert's "History," p. 340. Three of its sentences are italicized,
whether by the Bishop elect or Dr. Tigert he does not record, but
they are enough to give the gist of it. After the opening sen-
tence, "In consequence of an act of the General Conference
passed this day, in which I conceive the constitution of the
Methodist Episcopal Church is violated, ... I cannot consist-
ently with my convictions of propriety and obligation enter upon
the work of an itinerant General Superintendent. ... I was
elected under the constitution and government of the Methodist
Episcopal Church unimpaired. ... I solemnly declare, and
could appeal to the Searcher of hearts for the sincerity of my
intentions, that I cannot act as Superintendent under the rules
this day made and established by the General Conference."
Tigert says, " This act of the Bishop elect was prompt and de-
cisive. The question was not new to him." This is true. He
spoke from the vantage-ground as the acknowledged author of
the restrictive articles of 1808, and specially that which forbade

1 Dr. Buckley, in the " History of Methodism," Vol. I. p. 434, says that this
report was signed by Cooper, Roszel, Bangs, Wells, Emory, and Capers, the entire
committee.

SOULE ELECTED BISHOP — ELECTIVE ELDERSHIP 7

the General Conference "to change or alter any part or rule of
our government, so as to do away episcopacy, or destroy the plan
of our itinerant general superintendency." True, also, that many
who voted for the restrictions never dreamed that it was a Mede
and Persian regulation, and that covertly this very elective pre-
siding eldership was to be forestalled by it, so that when Soule's
letter was read to the Conference, claiming for himself the right
to interpret the law as well according to the mental reserves of
Asbury, M'Kendree, and himself, great was the astonishment and
the indignation of not a few of the large majority. Before his
letter was read to the Conference, the bishops held a consultation
over it. Snethen has already given their diverse views, so the
result of their interview only need be cited, which was that they
would proceed with the ordination, M'Kendree to report to the
Conference their views of the question raised by Soule. Two
days after his election accordingly, M'Kendree presented Soule's
letter to the Conference, and also read one from himself, the gist
of which is in these sentences : " I extremely regret that you have,
by this measure, reduced me to the painful necessity of pro-
nouncing the resolution unconstitutional, and therefore without
the proper authority of the Church. ... I enter this protest."
It had been fondly hoped since 1808 by the liberal sentiment of
the preachers that the restrictive articles, whether accepted as a
Constitution or not, did away with the former power of veto of
the bishops, and this view received encouragement by the course
of the bishops themselves, who from that time ceased to partici-
pate in debate, made no motion, and abstained from voting.
Judge their astonishment as well as indignation to hear this
resumption of it by the senior Bishop, — he pronounced it uncon-
stitutional and destitute of authority.

The ordination of Soule had been set by the bishops for Wednes-
day, May 24, at 11 o'clock a.m., whereupon the majority, unin-
timidated by this show of authority and menace of power, held
a caucus and determined to arrest his ordination. Capers, in his
manuscript account of the action, as cited by Paine, complains :
"Those in favor of a change took exceptions to [M'Kendree and
Soule's letters], held a caucus without consulting those not in
favor of the change, and determined to arrest the ordination of
J. Soule." D. Ostrander and James Smith deserve to be em-
balmed as the authors of the resolution, which recites in substance
that inasmuch as the Bishop elect had notified them that he would
not be bound by the Conference action, that "the Bishops be

8 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

earnestly requested by this Conference to defer or postpone the
ordination of the said Joshua Soule until he gives satisfactory
explanations to this Conference." Tigert speaks of the "manly
dignity " of Soule, and quotes from Stevens his " dignified car-
riage as at times verging on majesty." It may be conceded, but
it is opined, that the reader will see in this revolution of Ostrander
and Smith a manly dignity quite equal to any exhibition Soule
ever made. Meantime it seems that the minority had also gotten
together and agreed upon a line of proceeding, as they could
caucus as well, so that, while the resolution was debating, Soule
and others complained that it did not fairly represent him. True,
it was blunt, but the objection was a, quibble. Finally it was
withdrawn. Then a motion was made to reconsider the action of
the Conference on the presiding-elder question. It was lost,
whereupon Nelson Eeed suggested that they proceed at once to
the ordination of Soule, as the time set had come. At this
juncture, Tigert finds Soule's manly dignity, when he rose and
requested the Conference by vote to postpone it, but it was not
concurred in — the manly dignity of the Conference was aroused
to a high pitch. The debate went on, shields were locked, timid
or disgusted men left the Conference room, until it was discovered
by the presiding Bishop George, willing to find some way out of
the imminent crisis, that there was not a two-thirds vote present
for business ; he rose " and announced that the episcopacy had
deferred the ordination, and the Conference adjourned."

The next morning all were present but five, Eoberts in the
chair, and the motion was finally taken by ballot, and resulted in
a tie, forty -three to forty -three; the chair refused to vote, and
pronounced it lost. The next day Bishop George again announced
the ordination for 12 o'clock, whereupon Soule presented a letter,
in which he stated his resignation of the office of Bishop. It was
laid on the table. At the next session he pressed it, but no action
was taken. The case was apparently lost for an unlimited and
irresponsible episcopacy, the General Conference declaring it-
self supreme in its opinion, as set over against that of M 'Ken-
dree and Soule, that an Elective Presiding Eldership was
not an infringement of the restrictive articles, granting the
bishops their full claim of being conscientious as to its being a
violation.

The situation was desperate and called for desperate measures
by the episcopacy and its adherents. It developed in a piece of
political strategy worthy the finesse of accomplished lobbyists.

BISHOPS PROTEST — THE ISSUE JOINED 9

It has never come to light who were the conceivers and exec-
utors of it, but the fact is known that during the next twenty-
four hours, an evening and a night being included, as answering
well such work, a paper was carried round to the members, favor-
able and doubtful and weak -hearted, asking signatures to an
agreement to vote the next day for a " suspension " of the " con-
ciliatory resolutions," as those on the eldership were called, inas-
much as the friends of the measure had conceded everything they
could by yielding the nomination to the episcopacy of the men
who were to be elders, and in the cabinet of the bishops. Forty-
five signers were secured, a bare majority of the Conference.
Who can tell what arguments of patronage and what menaces of
power were used by these dark-lantern manipulators? Snethen's
comment upon this transaction is mildly expressed but trenchantly
keen. He had retired to his country home before it had occurred.
He says, " We were not present when the protest [if we may call
it so] against the conciliation was entered. Having witnessed
that interesting scene [the vote of a large majority in favor of the
conciliation plan] we left the Conference with joyful emotions of
heart." Two years subsequently, in the first of the numerous
articles he wrote for the Wesleyan Repository, he said of it, " No
man ought to be questioned for anything he says in a hall of
legislation; but when men legislate out of doors, they place
themselves within the reach of animadversion. The vote to
reconsider the plan of conciliation came to a tie, yet after several
of the members had left the Conference a paper was taken round
among the members, and forty-five signers were engaged, and
pledged to vote for a suspension of the rule for four years. The
principal mover of the measure declared the fact before the Con-
ference, in defiance of argument, etc." The finesse of the transac-
tion is seen in part from the fact that it called only for a suspension
for four years, and for that this dark-lantern method secured the
actual signatures of the members ; first, that there might be no
hedging by them, and, second, that the evidence of their partici-
pation might be submitted to M'Kendree in proof of their fealty.
The next morning, May 26, the motion to suspend was introduced.
It was warmly debated, despite the unblushing avowal that forty-
five names were appended to it, S. G. Roszel acting as spokesman
and tactician, as he was probably the active agent in the outdoor
work through the night. Griffith, Hedding and Bangs took part.
Late in the afternoon it was carried by a vote of forty-five in favor
and thirty-five against. Thus it is seen that not a single vote was

10 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

gained for it by the day's debate, while thirty-five, probably all
who remained in attendance, unflinchingly voted against it, nine
of the members having gone home or declined to attend the ses-
sion. The large majority was now a hopeless minority. The
cause was lost — it will be seen, irrevocably.

The remaining steps may be briefly summarized. Soule's
resignation was before the Conference as unfinished business.
Roszel and Hodges moved that he be requested to withdraw it
and '' comply with the wishes of his brethren in submitting to be
ordained." It was carried by a vote of forty -nine in favor, the
negative not stated; four weaklings went over to the forty -five.
Thus the way seemed to open for the complete triumph of the
M'Kendree party, but, as Tigert gives the cue, "the bishop elect
had been attacked in different ways, and sorely pressed," and he
still insisted on his resignation, and it was accepted. Capers
says, however, " that it was not done by a direct vote of the Con-
ference, but announced from the chair that it was accepted."
(See Tigert, p. 347.) Alexander McCaine, acting as Secretary
to the body and intimate with all the members, throws some light
upon an occult reason for Soule's resignation; the large minority
vote on his election was an intense one, and they availed of every
opportunity to defeat his ordination afterward. Let McCaine
explain : " But why were the preachers who best know Mr. Soule
so strongly opposed to his ordination? There is no instance of
such stern opposition being made to the ordination of any other
Methodist bishop. Simply because Joshua Soule was a despot.
Now it matters not a straw with us, whether this statement be
controverted by Mr. Soule, or any of his friends, on the ground
that 'despot' was not the term that was used. We believe it
was the very term; but whether it was despot or tyrant, it is all
the same in our estimation, as the ground of opposition was an
overbearing, despotic, tyrannical disposition. Perhaps his brother
bishop, Elijah Hedding, recollects the expression or expressions
used when stating his reasons for opposing the ordination of
Mr. Soule. That there was an opposition — a strong, intense,
and unparalleled opposition — we presume Mr. Soule himself will
not deny. This being the case, it will show that there were other
reasons for his declination to be ordained than that which he, or
some of his friends for him, have asserted: the action of the
General Conference on the Presiding Elder question. These pro-
ceedings will do more than this; they will show that the charge
of despotism has not originated with the author of these sketches,

A TWO-THIBDS MAJORITY DEFEATED 11

but with the men who were well acquainted, with him, etc." J It
may be well to observe, in passing, that McCaine as a writer did
not mince his words, but, as he in this instance proves, the harsh-
est terms employed by him, and for which his writings were in
1827-30 condemned, and himself made an exception to the
amnesty proposed by the General Conference of 1828 to the
Eeformers, were terms he learned from the lips of Cooper,
Griffith, Bangs, Emory, and others in the open debates and pri-
vate conversations of these times. But there is a difference when
Hedding denounces Soule as a despot in 1820, and McCaine does
the same of him and others in 1827-30, as shall be shown. Soule
was both conscientious and consistent in his stand as compared
with his position in 1808. His honesty cannot and need not be
impeached. He maintained his consistency in all his after
career; and before marshalling the issues of this decisive contest
of 1820, the concluding legislative action of that Conference may
be noted.

Early in the Eldership-Soule debate, on motion he was voted
$1000 extra compensation for his services as Book Agent in
New York. The vote was not explained with satisfaction.
Tigert furnishes a number of letters written by Soule dur-
ing the Conference to the bishops, defining and justifying his
position, and those who wish to read all that he has said are
referred to them. May 27, after Bishop George had intimated
that the election of another Bishop was a necessity, Wells and
Capers moved to go into an election, but it was withdrawn, after
information had been given by the bishops that a Protest 2 against
entering into another election, signed by thirty members of the
New York, New England, Genesee, Philadelphia, and other Con-
ferences was in their hands. Roszel having affirmed that they
would have no one but Soule, it was feared by the now defeated
friends of an elective eldership that such an election would only
result in a reelection of Soule, and this they determined to defeat
at all hazards.3 In the emergency George and Roberts agreed to do

betters. Boston. 8vo. 206 pp. 1850.

2 Among the reasons assigned in this Protest is the following : " They also
complain of the majority for the manner in which they secured the suspension of
the Presiding Elder resolutions ' on yesterday by obtaining the signatures of said
majority,' and that now they are so leagued together that they can and will carry
any measure they choose, however obnoxious to the feelings and views of the
minority. They therefore say we most earnestly wish the present session to come
to a close." Paine's " Life of M'Kendree."

8 McCaine gives some farther facts in evidence. "When it was officially an-
nounced that Joshua Soule was elected to the office of Bishop, the preachers who

12 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

the work with M'Kendree as far as he would be physically able,
until the next General Conference, and so ended the question.

The law allowing the Annual Conferences to "form their own
regulations about buying and selling slaves " was rescinded. John
Emory was appointed a delegate to the English Conference to
settle the Canada differences. His abilities as a stanch advocate
of the Elective Eldership, and his rising reputation generally,
brought from the Episcopal party this first suggestive promotion.
What came of this visit has been considered in the first volume.
On the last day of the Conference it was discovered that the re-
strictive articles of 1808 were defective in that they made no pro-
vision to pass upon the constitutionality of the acts of a General
Conference. Did Soule overlook it? The presumption must be
that he did not, for consistency in his general position delegated
to the bishops a veto power over the acts of the General Con-
ference as the interpreters of laws, and called for no provision by
which they could be overruled. It was his idea of an episcopacy,
akin to that of Asbury and M'Kendree. The Conference, how-
ever, was alarmed on this discovery and passed a resolution
advising the several Annual Conferences to authorize the ensuing
General Conference to enact a law that when an action of it shall
be pronounced unconstitutional by the bishops, they shall return
it to the body within three days, and if it then pass by a two-
thirds vote, it shall be valid despite the objection of the bishops.
By a majority vote it was a tentative agreement to a veto power
of the bishops. What came of it will be seen hereafter.

were best acquainted with him determined to defeat his ordination. Whether
they met in caucus to consult how they could most easily and certainly effect
their purpose, we are not able to say, but we have been told that their first plan
was to come in a body into the church when the officiating Bishop was about to
commence the services, and protest against his ordination. Why this plan was
abandoned to make way for another, we know not. We do know that their sec-
ond plan was to reduce the General Conference below the constitutional number
necessary to give validity to its proceedings, which is ' two-thirds.' For this pur-
pose, as the hour (12 m.) approached, one after another of those preachers who
were opposed to his ordination would go out, until at last, • seven minutes before
twelve,' when Mr. Sias was speaking, it was ascertained there was not a quo-
rum. Bishop George then announced, ' The ordination is postponed to some future
time.' " This account bears every sign of verisimilitude, not only in the caution
of McCaine in not affirming beyond his positive knowledge, but in that the facts
stated are found to quadrate perfectly with those already given by Paine and
Tigert. Was Bishop George a party to it? It seems probable in that as an advo-
cate of 1 lie Elective Eldership, Cooper, and not Soule, must have been his prefer-
ence, and in that he must have observed from the chair the diminishing number
of members present, and his quick avail to postpone on the no-quorum excuse.
See "Letters on M. E. Church," Boston, 1850, p. 109.

THREE THINGS LOGICALLY ESTABLISHED 13

Three things were incontestably established by the final action
of this General Conference. First, that the bishopric was an
order and not an office merely; that it was a life tenure, and
carried with it such an interpretation of the restrictive arti-
cles as made it impossible for any succeeding body to change
either the statutory or traditional regulations of Asbury and
M'Kendree, as to its powers ; that the Bishop was not open to
impeachment except for immorality, and was practically un-
amenable to any one but himself. The General Conferences of
1824, 1828 settled these concessions even more fully, so that from
this period onward the theory was taught and acted upon in the
undivided Methodist Episcopal Church down to 1844. Then the
delegates from the North and West, finding that they could make
no case on which to demand the suspension or resignation of
Bishop Andrew as a "General Superintendent," by reason of his
unpopularity in those sections in that he was a slaveholder, hav-
ing come to the relation by a marriage which entailed upon him
such property, which by the laws of the state in which he and
they lived could not be made free, abandoned the ground of
Asbury and M'Kendree, and took the position, until then entirely
new, except as held by a minority largely in the silence of sub-
mission, that the bishopric was not an order, but an office simply;
and they claimed for the General Conference the sovereignty which
it was all along held had been vested in the restrictive articles of
1808, and that of consequence it was competent for it to suspend
or depose a Bishop who refused to resign, on high grounds of expe-
diency such as appeared in the case of Andrew. Its ultimate will
be seen when the division of 1844 has been reached and considered.
It was entirely consistent with Wesley's idea and purpose in the
appointment of General Superintendents, and therefore the true
Wesleyan system; but it was inconsistent with the hierarchic
system of which Coke, Asbury, M'Kendree, and Soule were the
fathers and exponents. Logical necessity therefore compelled
Soule in 1844 to unite his fortunes with the South, and has held
it ever since in the hierarchic toils, waiting some future day of
redemption, while it also led the North to such finalities of
action in delimiting the bishopric as has been already exhibited
in the first volume.

Second, the action of this General Conference for the time de-
termined the supremacy of a Bishop over it, irrespective of two-
thirds majority or unanimous votes. Let it not startle the con-
servative reader, — it is not a coinage of the writer. Dr. John

14 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

Emory must be given the credit of it as another epigram in
reform literature. When M'Kendree, in his address to the
Baltimore Conference in 1822, plead for their adoption of a reso-
lution approving the suspension of the conciliatory paper of 1820,
as required by the constitution, it so aroused Emory, that " jus-
tice to himself and the cause which he espoused demanded that
he should expose what he considered its fallacies," and he did it
in so masterful a manner that the Bishop's request was " in-
definitely postponed by a large vote." See Robert's Life of his
father, p. 148, following the father's statement on p. 147 : " In
the estimation of the advocates of an elective presiding eldership,
the question now merged in the more important one whether the
episcopacy or the General Conference was to be supreme." The
reader, on a calm review of the proceedings, will determine the
question for himself; it need not be more firmly established by
the writer.

Third, the action of this General Conference was a demonstra-
tion that it is hopeless to expect reform from within in a hier-
archic system. In this, history has many times repeated itself.
Snethen, one of the most buoyant and charitable of men, review-
ing calmly the situation and the opinions entertained as to the
emergency, says : " The common opinion was, the plan works well
enough [the Asbury-M'Kendree plan], and it will be time enough
to correct the evils when they happen, if they ever do. No fears
were entertained of consequences. Now I too was (as they said)
for letting well enough alone,1 wanting no remedy for well
enough, but to provide for bad enough; because none had been
provided, and when it should come, the remedy would be too late.
The notion, as I conceived, that a government so constructed
might be reformed, has no foundation in science. A carriage
which has no brake upon its wheels, when descending a hill can-
not be stopped to provide one; but its motion must grow more
rapid as it runs." How apt the illustration, and how verified
the fact! A parallel from history obtrudes itself, as given by
D'Aubigne, so pertinent that it will not down. He says in sub-
stance, the Council of Constance is an example of the futility of
Reform from within the erring Church. It was assembled at the
call for Reformation on all sides. Never convened a more august
conclave of Romish officials. There were eighteen hundred doc-
tors of divinity and priests, with an immense number of cardinals,
archbishops, bishops ; the Emperor himself, with a retinue of a
1 See his " Replies to O'Kelly," so far as he was the author.

NO REFORM FROM WITHIN A HIERARCHY 15

thousand attendants, and other civil dignitaries and ambassadors
from all nations composed an authoritative assembly unprece-
dented in the history of Christianity. Everything bowed before
it as it deposed three rival popes at once, and at the same time
delivered John Huss to the flames. A commission was formed
to propose a fundamental Reform. The Council was unanimously
supported by the Emperor Sigismund. The cardinals all took an
oath that he among them who should be elected Pope would not
dissolve the Assembly nor leave Constance before the desired
reformation should be accomplished. Colonna was chosen, under
the title of Martin V. So soon as he had placed the tiara on his
head, he exclaimed, "The Council is at an end! " Sigismund and
the Council uttered a cry of distress and indignation, but it was
lost upon the wind. Martin ordered a coronation procession to
be formed of the Assembly, and rode through the streets of Con-
stance with the highest in civil authority holding the bridle of his
horse and all obsequiously bowing before him. With the admis-
sion that it is comparing small things with great, the parallel
holds. The General Conference of 1820 assembled with a two-
thirds majority bent upon a great Reform. There were twenty-
eight out of the fifty-eight presiding elders elected to it, but a
number of these were known to be favorable to the Reform. Its
purpose had been maturing for four years and was backed by the
laity of the Church. Assembled, it proceeded to its object despite
all murmurings and menaces, and, when it was accomplished
amid general rejoicing and the retirement of some of the delegates
to their homes, the Bishop elect, Soule, uttered his " veto, " and
before adjournment finally had the Conference at his feet. His
interpretation prevailed over two-thirds of the episcopacy and
two-thirds of the Conference, the senior Bishop fully indorsing
the junior. At the best their view was nothing but an official
opinion, and "I declare upon my conscience," set over against
the opinion of their episcopal colleagues and the verdict of the
Conference. How forcibly does Snethen philosophize and ration-
alize upon this issue: "What would be thought of the Grand
Turk, for instance, if he should oppose any plan to favor the liber-
ties of the people, because it was unconstitutional. Constitutions
were designed to set bounds to power. The people of the United
States, in 1787, made a constitution to prevent absolute monarchy,
not to confirm it. The barons of England met at Runnymede to
set bounds to the power of the kings, and not to form a great
charter of despotism. . . . Eor bishops and travelling preachers

16 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

to employ the restrictions only to restrain the hands of those
who labor to promote liberty makes them appear so much like
tyrants that, let them assert to the contrary ever so loudly, people
will say, 'Actions speak louder than words!' Why will they
not be entreated to forbear to argue that they have a constitution
which shuts up all the avenues by which liberty can possibly
enter into the Church, so that it never can gain an admittance,
unless those who have seated themselves in power shall conde-
scend to open the door. All the circumstances connected with
this constitutional claim, which has been set up and pursued with
so much perseverance, appear to threaten evil consequences.
When our countrymen find every idea which they have been in
the habit of attaching to a constitution reversed, and instead of
this instrument being a palladium of liberty, as they supposed,
becoming a mere charter of self-created and monopolized power,
must they not lose all confidence in the agents who produced the
transformation."

Bangs has quite fully given a digest of the whole discussion of
the elective eldership question in his history, and with marked
impartiality, seeing that he favored it, but Snethen has pointed
out the very gist of it, in the alternative argument : " Either the
presiding elders should become responsible to the Annual Con-
ferences, or that a rule should be made to prevent them from
becoming members of the General Conference." Perhaps the
friends of the measure would have been content with such a
restrictive law but for the fact that it in turn would have been a
gross invasion of personal rights, and an offensive piece of class
legislation. Wherefore? The working of the hierarchic prin-
ciple had already become patent, — the junior preacher voted for
the senior preacher for reasons obvious enough in the practical
administration of the Conference politics; the senior voted for
his presiding elder, and the presiding elder voted for all measures
countenanced by the presiding bishop, and opposed those he
opposed. As a consequence the list of elders in every General
Conference grew,1 until few pastors found a way to climb the

1 The composition of the General Conference of 1820 is remarkable as an illus-
tration of this very fact, though as already mentioned but twenty-eight were at
the time in actual service as presiding elders, yet McCaine, who knew every man
of them personally, says that it was composed " of eighty-nine sitting members,
sixty-three of whom were presiding elders, or had filled that station." See
Repository, Vol. Ill, p. 375, so that in addition to the twenty-eight elders in
actual office there were thirty-five ex-elders in it. From this fact one can estimate
the sweep of sentiment that crystallized in favor of an elective eldership. How

LOCAL PREACHERS' DISTRICT CONFERENCE 17

steeps of ecclesiastical ambition ; and it was precisely these things
that ultiniated in the high-handed steps of Soule and M'Kendree,
under cover of their conscience and the constitution, as they in-
terpreted it. A concluding sentence of a paragraph as to this
historical era, in the introductory chapter of the first volume,
makes the allegation : " It marked its culmination ; it also marked
its decadence." It was made after the facts, but the prescient
minds of Snethen and Alexander McCaine reached the same con-
clusion. In a few years thereafter, the former said (1823) :
" From the suspension of the conciliatory resolutions, I date the
commencement of the downfall of our bishops' power; " and the
latter, in 1850, wrote, " Methodist Episcopacy arrived at the ne
plus ultra of power and authority in 1820. This was the year it
ceased to advance; and from this year also, we may date the
commencement of its decline." A succeeding chapter will fur-
nish the rationale of it.

One more action of this General Conference challenges notice
before it is dismissed from these pages, the most pregnant in its
results ever held down to 1844, and intimately connected with it
in its root principles, as will hereafter be shown. At the General
Conference of 1816, the local ministers and preachers had peti-
tioned that body for representation in it. The answer of the Con-
ference in the negative was written by John Emory, and was a
forcible paper, from the Conference point of view. The locality
had increased both in average ability and numbers, sustaining the
relation of nearly three to one of the itinerants, which at this
date are set down at 904, and now that so large a proportion of
them were ordained, either as deacons or elders, the question of
their subordination was a vexed one. In 1820 they renewed their
petitions, and it was deemed expedient by the bishops and the
itinerants to do something that would at least have the appear-
ance of concession to their claims.1 The Conference created " The
District Conference," to be composed of "all the local preachers
in the presiding elder's district who have been licensed two

much these disgruntled men, who secured their election on the issue over the
actual incumbents of the office, had to do with the result may be recognized as a
factor; for at this time there were sixty-five elders' districts. Twenty-eight of
these actual incumbents secured election, though as made plain from the debates
not a few of them favored the elective system. The remaining thirty-seven were
defeated by thirty-five ex-elders, presumably on this issue. It is a curious and
instructive study.

1 This concession was most adroit and had an ulterior purpose well exposed by
Hon. Philemon B. Hopper of Maryland in the Wesleyan Repository for March,
1822, under the title, "An Earnest Appeal." He makes the expose in these

VOL. II — C

18 IIISTOUY OF METHODIST BEFOBM

years," and there was transferred to it all the powers formerly-
vested in the Quarterly Conference as to the supervision of this
class. It ran through about a decade of years, and then died of
inanition. It was a mere shadow of the thing the locality asked,
and never was popular with them. It was often difficult to
assemble them together. It proved an abortion, but use was
made of it in connection with the proceedings against Reformers
in 1827-30, which invests it with an historical importance it
could not otherwise claim in this work.

illuminating words : "The very idea that the people should know and appreciate
their rights * is most terrible to the advocates of the exceptionable parts of our
Church Government. This was strikingly evinced by the acts of the last General
Conference ; for when the most enlightened local preachers in the different parts
of the country (many of whom were once found to rule the Church) , feeling their
state of degradation, and their near approximation to the condition of the private
members of the Church, became dissatisfied, the General Conference took the
alarm, and, fearing that their clamors might arouse the people, they determined to
appease them by raising them a grade higher than the people. They gave them
the power to hold district conferences, to make local preachers, and to recommend
preachers to travel, thereby taking from the membership what little of the
preacher-making power they had before. This nominal distinction appears to
have satisfied these clamorous local preachers, without bestowing on them one
legislative prerogative."

* See this strikingly confirmed in the succeeding chapter.

The whole of this local preacher question on which so much can be said for and against,
proved a bull in the china shop, both to the itinerants and the people in tentations for the adjust-
ment of the inequalities between the last two. Snethen was a warm advocate of the locality as
such, but did not favor their ordination, and when they failed to make an appreciative use of
their District Conference privilege, he despaired of a satisfactory adjustment with them.
Through ill-health, he was of the class for a number of years, and so entitled to speak without
prejudice. He thus speaks : " In this same General Conference the local preachers' Conference
was authorized. My advice was asked [he was then local himself]. It was that whatever the
General Conference might do in regard to the local preachers should be real and not nominal ;
that their expectations ought not to be raised with the promise of substance to be disappointed
with shadows. I had been an advocate of the local preachers for twelve years, that is, nntil
their ordination to elder's orders was sanctioned by the General Conference ; but the fate of
their Conference disclosed facts enough to convince me that as a body they would not be apt to
profit by anything which might be gained for them. As I had become local I ceased to have
any immediate personal interest in the election of presiding elders by the members of the
Annual Conferences. But to preserve consistency I gave the cause all the continued support in
my power." This was written in 1835. See Introduction to his volume on " Lay Representa-
tion," for that year. Methodism in England, next to the Wesleys, owed its origin to local
preachers, and in America they absolutely originated it. It would seem that too much honor
could not be paid them. When Richard Allen inaugurated the African M. E. Church they were
admitted to the Conferences on an equality with the itinerants. Perhaps if the General Confer-
ence of 1820 had been sagacious enough — inasmuch as the District Conference in its ulterior
purpose was to forestall an agitation of lay rights — to admit them likewise, reenforced by this
influential class in almost every location, it might have further delayed Lay-Reform for scores of
years. But the illusive arrogation had seized the itinerants that the man on horsebaok, riding
upon saddle-bags, had imparted to him a capacity for governing impossible to the laity, or to
the locality. Perpetual motion on a circuit was virtue-inspiring and wisdom-imparting.

CHAPTER II

Fears of M'Kendree and notably of Soule of the effect upon the membership of
the defeat of the presiding elder question — It did alarm the "people," and
was the seed of the Reform of 1827-30 — Snethen on this point — M'Kendree's
reference of the measure to the Annual Conferences; failure of it, and his
"baby act" plea for his change of views since O'Kelly's defection analyzed
to his discomfiture — Sketch of W S. Stockton and the inception of the Wes-
ley an Repository in 1821 — The Repository in its objects and contributors
and support carefully reviewed — In it James Smith published an unanswera-
ble argument against the Constitutional nature of the restrictive articles of
1808 and quoted here in full — The quest since then of the old Church for its
" Constitution " never yet found — The local preacher contention and its dam-
age to the Lay-Representation movement of 1820-30 fully considered — First
public Reform meeting in Cincinnati, August 19, 1823 — Ezekiel Cooper's plan
— Early Reformers.

Reviewing the situation in 1820, Bishop Paine, in his " Biog-
raphy of Bishop M'Kendree," says, "Who can doubt but that
on both sides there was honest difference of opinion among breth-
ren equally good and true ? Who doubts that Garrettson, Bangs,
Hedding, Pickering, Emory, and Waugh, and their colleagues, on
one side, and Collins, Capers, Andrew, Roszel, Peed, and Soule,
and their associates, on the other side, were aiming with equal zeal
and integrity to promote what they sincerely believed to be the
permanent interests of the Church ? " It need not be doubted,
though sincerity and honesty are often, as in this case, made to
cover indirection of method and arbitrary proceeding, both of which
were conspicuously exhibited by the opponents of the measure.
Nothing could disguise the fact that a majority vote of more than
two-thirds was made a minority by the seductions of patronage
and the menaces of power. No one can doubt that if the measure
had been defeated by honorable means, no such distracting agita-
tion and imminent peril would have followed its defeat. Let the
consequences be examined.

M'Kendree, in his Journal of this date, says, " The Conference
hastened to a close, and the members departed to their respective
charges, but with different views relative to our Church polity,
the result of the Conference, and the state of the Episcopacy ; and

19

20 BISTORT OF METHODIST REFORM

their conflicting views and apprehensions ivere btit too freely dissemi-
nated among the people." And Soule, writing to M'Kendree May 6,
1S21,1 expressed fears of the course the latter had determined to
pursue, that of submitting the suspended resolutions for the deci-
sion of the Annual Conferences, and in a few sentences lets in the
light on their secret forebodings as to the effect upon the ignored
"people." "But my principal fears are the effect the measure
may have on the membership. The measures of the last General
Conference have given many of our people great alarm." The ital-
ics in both citations are supplied. Following the extract from
Soule's letter, he indulges reflections indicative of the mole-like
blindness of the autocratic mind as to the acquiescence of the peo-
ple in their own ignoring and subjection. It is the very essence
of paternity — your lordly rulers in State and Church construe
silence to be peace, and when the rod is stretched over them until
their human nature winces, the "agitators" are denounced for
disturbing the blissful serenity of their paternal reign. The great
alarm among the people, which Soule had reason to witness more
in 1821, than M'Kendree had in May, 1820, both of them utterly
misunderstood. It was not as they put it, that they feared a dis-
turbance of the enactments of 1808, in which Soule imagined they
had acquiesced, so that " general joy prevailed under the conviction
that we had arrived at that permanent state of things in which all
might rest." The query comes up : How could they be known to
acquiesce in measures about which they were not consulted in the
remotest degree ? Their alarm was excited by the spectacle of
these war-horses of the episcopacy taking the bit in their teeth in
defiance of all restraint. They applied fire to the dry stubble —
what marvel that these peasants ecclesiastical should cry out when
they saw it menace farmhouse and barn, fence and forest. Snethen
voiced their deeper thinking, and requotation is demanded. "Truly,
if people care not how the church is governed, their governors will,
in process of time, care little how they govern them. This indif-
ference is one of the awful and undoubted evidences of the effects
of an absolute government." Yet the contention is not made that
all the laity were equally affected in this way. As in the ranks
of the ministry, so in those of the laity, there was a hierarchic party.
Snethen aptly illustrated the di vergence : " From many cases which
we can recollect, we are all persuaded that the tories, as they were
called, were not in the usual acceptation of the term, enemies of
their country, or friends to tyranny. In what then did they dif-

i Tigert's " History," p. 365.

ARBITRARY RULINGS ALARMED "-THE PEOPLE" 21

fer from the whigs ? Why, in their unbounded confidence in
their rulers. True, said they, we may be taxed without our con-
sent ; but we ought to help to bear the expenses of the mother
country ; the parliament will never tax us unreasonably. The
whigs, on the contrary, looked steadily at the principle; if the
parliament, said they, assume the right, or the power, to take a
penny without our consent, they may take a pound ; and if one
pound, all our property. How was this last argument resisted ?
We now look back with wonder upon the blind and obstinate at-
tachment of our countrymen to the then existing powers. But
there was another cause operating on their minds, while their con-
fidence was strong in the goodness of the king and parliament ;
their partisans took care to influence their feelings against the
assertors of principle. You have, said they, more to fear from
these revolutionists, than from the established government, which
will not take more than is necessary. It was by this means that
principle was lost sight of, and passion and prejudice were raised
to the highest degree. Absolute government is wrong in prin-

ciple, and confidence in it is wrong. All these worthy itinerants
are creatures of a day. Men are given to change, but principles
are immortal. The principles of these obnoxious travelling and
local preachers, and the brethren with whom they act, are right.
They say, and they say truly, that the best of men ought not to
be intrusted with unnecessary powers and prerogatives." Once
more, as bearing directly upon the times of 1820-24 : " For
many years my mind has been quieted, as it regarded any imme-
diate danger the principle of lay-delegation might be exposed to,
by taking it for granted that, should a crisis arrive, a majority of
travelling preachers, as American citizens, could not be found pub-
licly and officially to declare that the laity have no right directly
to participate in church legislation. Transpiring events, however,
continued to excite suspicion that I might have been too sanguine ;
and the suspended resolutions converted suspicion into certainty.
If liberal principles had prevailed, the evidences of their decline
were irresistible. Can men, who will yield their own rights in a
struggle with prerogative, be trusted with the rights of others ? "
Thus was securely laid, by the ministerial father of Lay-Represen-
tation in America, the foundation, rationally and philosophically,
of the great Methodist Reformation of the decade from 1820 to
1830. But before it is further opened by the laic father, William
S. Stockton, let the devious course of Bishop M'Kendiee be traced ;
his personal responsibility for submitting the suspended resolu-

22 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

tions for the approval of the Annual Conferences ; the expedients
resorted to, and the finality of the bold challenge thus be made.

After the adjournment of the General Conference, Bishop
M'Kendree remained in Baltimore for some weeks recruiting his
health and fortifying himself by consultation with his friends in
his determination to submit the suspended resolutions to the
Annual Conferences. For this action he cited the precedent of
Asbury, who, after organizing the Genesee Conference, met the
protests of the preachers by submitting the act to the Annual
Conferences among which he was sustained as well as by the
succeeding General Conference. He urged other plausible reasons
and proceeded to his task. The subject inspired him with new
strength of body and mind. It was to be the supreme act of his
official life. He tells in his Journal what alienations of former
friends it had wrought, how coldly he was greeted, if not repulsed,
for the stand he had taken both at the Conference and now.
Giving him all the benefit of his almost pathetic pleas, the reader
will wonder that he should be surprised at the treatment accorded
him. Not a few who were in the Conference of 1820, like the
Bishop himself, had also been members of the memorable one of
1792, though nearly thirty years had rolled between. Among
these were George, Pickering, Garrettson, Cooper, Roszel, and
Reed, the first four stanch advocates of the suspended resolutions.
They had not forgotten the fiery speech of the young elder of
1792, M'Kendree ; his blistering words in denunciation of the un-
amenable powers of the episcopacy ; the concerted effort of the
preachers under initial auspices almost as certain of success in the
matter of the Appeal, as were those of 1820 when success was
overslaughed by the exercise, jointly of himself and Soule, of the
very powers then so trenchantly deprecated. Cooper, as was
found, has embalmed them in his semi-centennial sermon. Bishop
Paine in his " Life of M'Kendree," says not one word about this
famous speech. It were well enough if he had preserved the
same silence anent his incongruous conduct subsequently instead
of an almost reckless attempt to vindicate his consistency. To
be quoted point blank against yourself is an annoying predica-
ment. M'Kendree now had it to meet, but he did it in silence.
His words were bandied from mouth to mouth, " It is an insult
to my understanding, and is such an arbitrary stretch of power,
so tyrannical [or], despotic, that I cannot [or], will not submit to
it." It provided a never-to-be-forgotten epigram for the Reformers
of 1820-30. It is all that is preserved of an elaborate and mas-

M 'kendree' 's "baby act" plea 23

terf ul speech in vindication of the Eight of Appeal, a first cousin
measure to the Elective Eldership. If it was written or delivered
from notes, M'Kendree destroyed them, or Soule, into whose
hands his posthumous papers came, never disclosed anything.

There was, however, found among his papers a copy of a letter
written in 1803, at the request of Bishop Asbury, in which he
extenuates his conduct in the matter of his advocacy of the Eight
of Appeal in 1792, this feature probably being the objective of
Asbury in securing the communication, as M'Kendree was then
under his special patronage — indeed it might be said with as
much truth, had become the echo of Asbury, as it was said and in
this letter acknowledged by M'Kendree that he was the mere
echo of O'Kelly, neither of which was true — for he was rapidly
rising as a leader. It is autobiographical and about one-third of
it devoted to his relations with O'Kelly. It simply pleads the
"baby act," as the following extracts will show: "Mr. O'Kelly
changed his mind [about the Council business], and began in our
private interviews, to inform me of the imminent danger of near
approaching ruin which our then flourishing Church would in all
probability suffer ; that this mischief had itself a cause, which
according to unequivocal indications, was the want of religion in
a party of leading characters in the ministry — yourself, sir, at
the head of them — whose unbounded thirst for power and money,
as I understood him, was to pull down destruction on the Church
of God. . . But alas ! my greatest affliction in those days came
from where I ought to have had comfort ! When my old friend
[Mr. O'Kelly] visited us, much of the spare time was taken up in
private communication and consultation, the subject matter of
which was, ' the manner of a party which more and more mani-
fested the badness of their polity and principles, and must,' as he
said, 'sooner or later, inevitably ruin the Church of God.' . . .
I heard him and believed what I heard. ... I was unfortunate
enough to believe the report, and from this time counteracting
measures were consulted. ... I therefore refused to take a
regular station at Conference, because I expected to reject the
' monstrous system ' when it appeared, but met you and the Pre-
siding Elder a few days after Conference and took an appoint-
ment." There is no allusion to his speech in the Conference of
1792 — it would have neutralized the force of this "baby act" plea.

Every man has a right to explain himself, and when it is con-
gruous with the associated facts, charity demands that it be
accepted. But how does his explanation accord with the asso-

2i HISTORY OF METnODIST REFORM

ciated facts? He was converted under John Easter, and for
several years was under his influence for good, but Easter was
no agitator, or reformer, but a stanch Asburyan, and if he was
such a mere sponge as is represented, he imbibed his church
politics. He was ordained deacon and elder in the next five years,
and as such entered the General Conference of 1792, being then
thirty-five years of age. But the sponge came in contact with
O'Kelly as a Presiding Elder in this time and by exosmose lost
Easter's Asburyan views and by endosmose absorbed O'Kelly.
Then after a month, meeting Bishop Asbury at his father's
house, the Bishop having held the Virginia Conference and there
received M'Kendree's resignation in writing as an Elder, which
carried his membership in the Church as well. Through the
Presiding Elder an interview was arranged between the Bishop
and M'Kendree at his father's. It may be repeated that no man
knows all that transpired, but it is known that immediately the
sponge threw off O'Kelly and absorbed Asbury, and was sent
to Norfolk station, and thereafter promotion after promotion
attended his course till the Bishopric itself was reached. Can
any one believe that this man of stern, uncompromising, inde-
pendent manhood could be such a sponge ? Let those do so
who can. Undoubtedly M'Kendree made some discoveries after
his return to Asburyan fealty. Perhaps he saw him personally
in a different light, especially while he travelled with him on the
Bishop's invitation whose strong character rarely failed to impress.
Perhaps he saw that the winning side after all was with Asbury,
and the rapidity of his conversion from an extreme O'Kellyite to
a leonine Asburyan is only what all such tergiversations prove :
the pervert is nothing if not ultra. Explanations like these are
in accord with historical parallels, and Reform Methodism at
every stage of it has its examples.

There is a wide difference between the abandonment of a posi-
tion and of those associated with it, and the diligent pursuit
thereafter of old methods, not involving repudiation and denun-
ciation of former principles and their advocates ; and that new-
born zeal that ignores the past, destroys what was builded, and
exhibits illumination with preferment, or as cited in the former
volume and now repeated, "God forbid that men should not
learn while they live, but it is a bad sign when illumination
and preferment come together." Gatch for 1779, and Hope Hull
and Bruce for 1792, are examples of the former and they lost no
moral reputation in consequence, while Dickins for 1779, and

m'kendree's perversion explained 25

M'Kendree for 1792, are examples of the latter, and posterity will
not cease to repeat as its verdict Tyerman's sentiment as to
changelings quoted in the first volume : " Wesley had a perfect
right to change his opinions, . . . but when a man like Wesley
does that, he can hardly expect to escape unfriendly criticism.
The world dislikes changelings and hesitates to trust them." Other
instances of both these classes will be met with in the next decade
of this History. But why so elaborate an exposure of this phase
of M'Kendree's career ? Simply and sufficiently because no less
elaborate attempts have been and are still made to suppress or
minify the facts to a vanishing point, and the truth of history
demands it. One other fact and this episode will be dismissed.
The much traduced and vilified O'Kelly, when he heard of the
defection of M'Kendree, so far as may be gleaned from his pub-
lished writings, the only data that remain, did not turn upon
him with vituperation, as Asbury and M'Kendree turned upon
him, or hold up his motives to scornful imputation — he passed
the betrayal in silence.

Returning to the summer of 1820, and M'Kendree's prepara-
tion of the Address upon the suspended resolutions he submitted
to the twelve Annual Conferences, its consideration is in place.
It may be found in full in Fame's "Life of M'Kendree," and
it occupies fourteen twelvemo printed pages or about thirty-five
hundred words. It is lucid, logical, persuasive, and exhaustive of
his side of the question. Its assumptions are that the Restrictive
Articles of 1808 are the Constitution of the Church, in the making
of which that General Conference exhausted the sovereignty of the
legislative powers, except by the practically impossible method of
an approving vote of all the Annual Conferences and of a ratifica-
tion finally of two-thirds of the General Conference. His postu-
lates are stated with an extreme reference to intents and results
never dreamed of by the advocates of the Elective Eldership,
the ultimate being the destruction of the General Superintend-
ency, the abrogation of the itinerancy, and the nullification of
all the guarantees of the Constitution. If M'Kendree believed
it, and it must be conceded that he did, then was the situa-
tion alarming indeed, and his Address was enough to alarm the
whole Church. It did so, but not in the way the Address was
intended. That he was alarmed by the clamor around his ears,
which grew in volume and intensity as the facts gradually sifted
down among the people, is evident from the fact that even
M'Kendree made pause ; and, when he arrived at the Ohio Con-

26 HISTOBY OF METHODIST REFORM

ference, September 16, 1821, having delayed a full year the
presentation, he suggested, after the body had voted with him
that the suspended resolutions were unconstitutional, that never-
theless they recommend their passage and incorporation as a
modification of the restrictive articles. If he had conceded that
much while they were under consideration in 1820, it might have
conciliated the friends of the measure and anticipated the fearful
agitation that was now fermenting through the whole Church.
But the iron men of Episcopal rule never concede anything;
imminence of revolution wrested this from M'Kendree. Following
Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, South Carolina,
and Virginia took the same action, all but South Carolina also
accepting the Bishop's recommendation to incorporate the Elec-
tive Eldership in the " Constitution." One tires of a word when it
has so flimsy a foundation as in this case. South Carolina simply
took no action on the recommendation.

It will be noted as of future historical importance that these
were all Southern and Southwestern Conferences. Bishop Paine
says : " It was a magnanimous surrender of preference for the
sake of harmony ; but it was a dangerous concession, and proved
unavailing though well intended. The other five Conferences
refused to accept the change as a constitutional measure, because
they were unwilling to acknowledge the want of power in the
General Conference to effect it. They laid the Address upon the
table and there let it lie, — virtually refused to act on it, and
thus tacitly avowed their determination to carry the change into
effect independently of the constitutional scruples of the Bishops
and other Conferences. Great exertions were made to effect this
purpose." The Conferences which thus claimed the right to con-
strue law as well as the bishops were the New England, New
York, Genesee, Philadelphia, and Baltimore. It was an issue
joined upon the principle involved. Five against seven on the
resolutions themselves and six to six on the recommendation to
accept it as extra-constitutional, and, as it required the concur-
rence of all the Annual Conferences, it is seen how emphatically
it was defeated on the Bishop's own ground. The action of the
Philadelphia Conference was most pronounced, Cooper carrying
it unanimously against the Bishop. South Carolina was as
emphatic in favor, and so reveals how the two sections, North
and South in Methodism, came to be arrayed against each other :
the first contending for the continued sovereignty of the General
Conference with an interrogation at least as to the constitutional

m'kendbee's defeat in annual confebences 27

nature of the enactments of 1808, and the second making no ques-
tion that the Asbury-M'Kendree-Soule view of it was received as
binding the conscience. It will be seen in the sequel how this
cause operated in dividing the Church in 1844, the slavery ques-
tion being only its occasion. When M'Kendree reached the
Baltimore Conference in 1822, presented his Address and accent-
uated his anxiety to have it indorsed by this old and influential
conference, John Emory — the intrepid advocate of an Elective
Eldership in 1820 — was moved to throw himself into the breach.
His son Robert in his " Life of Emory," p. 143, says of this
episode: "Mr. Emory thought that justice to himself and the
cause which he espoused demanded that he should expose what
he considered to be its fallacies, especially as he had previously
discharged the duty of personal friendship by doing the same
privately to the Bishop when consulted on the Address before
it was made. As the result of the debate which ensued, a reso-
lution pronouncing the suspended resolutions unconstitutional
was indefinitely postponed by a large vote." l The speech brought
Emory more than ever into conspicuous notice ; as a champion
of Reform he was admired, and by its opponents he was respected.
Yet it will be seen that, despite this rebuff, the power and pat-
ronage of the episcopacy so wrought through its henchmen that at
the election for delegates to the General Conference of 1824, this
question having been largely made the issue, he was defeated.

Soule's admonition to M'Kendree as to his fears of such a pro-
ceeding as was proposed — to carry the suspended resolutions
around to the Conferences for approval — was sagacious and pro-
phetical. " But my principal fears are the effect which the meas-
ure may have on the membership. The measures of the last
General Conference have given our people great alarm." How
could it be otherwise ? Two-thirds of the most influential
preachers of the Church had returned to their homes chagrined
over a defeat by methods the most indirect, and by Episcopal
interference, the most arbitrary. It inaugurated a new condition
of things as to the people. The Annual Conferences were held
with closed doors, and the cue from the Elders to the preachers
seems to have been not to discuss church government, or Confer-
ence differences among the people — they were treated as in non-
age. But now in a struggle with the Episcopacy they instinct-
ively turned to the people. They could not refrain from talking
about it in the families, and the laity took sides as well. If not

1 The motion was made by Asa Shinn.

28 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

much versed in so-called church government, they had received a
schooling in civics. The whole Revolutionary War had been for
an idea, a principle, an abstract right, and a concrete liberty.
For years every hustings rang with oratory on the principles of
civil liberty. They quite thoroughly understood their rights and,
understanding, were prepared to maintain them, and the war of
1812-14 only emphasized the education. Thoughtful laymen of
the class of Simon Sommers, noticed in the first volume, took up
the issues of those who had " the rule over them " in their much
loved Methodism. The Discipline was examined and a strangely
anomalous condition of things was discovered. The " Constitu-
tion " of 1808 made provision that forever thereafter — taking the
view of the Asbury-M'Kendree-Soule party — the General Con-
ference was to be " composed of delegates from the Annual Confer-
ences," and the Annual Conferences were to be composed of
the preachers, and the delegates were to be chosen by a ratio of
preachers in the Conferences; the membership was a basis for
nothing, but to pray, pay, and obey. It was discovered that
while they slept the toils had been ingeniously entwined around
them. It was a desperate situation indeed ; for if in this tentative
struggle with power so slight a boon to the preachers as an elec-
tive eldership under the disability of nominations by the Episco-
pacy is crushed out, what chance would they have to assert their
Christian manhood along the same lines?

Ah me, it was dismal enough to contemplate. And then they
reverenced these men so highly for their work's sake and were
indebted to them for a gospel of free salvation — their spiritual
liberty ; and they were so used to the state of affairs, and as
Snethen said of the general principles involved, and so in this
particular instance of lay ignoring, it was "a usage, or custom
that ought to continue because it has been — that it is not old
because it is right, but right because it is old." It was Wesley's
way, and all his ways had been canonized. It was sacrilegious to
think otherwise. Yet think they must, and one of those thinkers
up in New Jersey, like his prototype in Virginia, Major Sommers,
must express his thoughts also. The agitation was circumscribed
by the limits of American Methodism only. Eeform had become
a word coincident with the membership. The negative of five of
the largest and most influential of the Conferences had said to the
Episcopacy, " Thus far shalt thou come, but no farther." Though,
as will be seen, that negative was overcome by methods only too
well known by the fuglemen of power and patronage, it never

WESLEYAN REPOSITORY AND ITS EDITOR 29

ceased to be a negative, and it gradually wrought a circumscrip-
tion of Episcopal powers at least in administration.

William Smith Stockton was born April 8, 1785, at Burlington,
2ST. J. He was descended from good families, the Stocktons and
the Gardiners, honorably known in colonial times. His parents
were Methodists of the first generation, his father's house a
religious centre for class, prayer, and preaching meetings, so that
in very early life he became a member of the Methodist Episcopal
Church. He had every educational advantage his day afforded,
and soon developed a taste for reading and writing. In 1807 he
married Elizabeth S. Hewlings, an admirable and pious woman
and a member of the same Church. Soon after his marriage he
removed to Mount Holly and there his firstborn, Thomas Hewlings,
afterward the eminent and unsurpassed preacher, was born. Subse-
quently he removed to Trenton, where he was associated with his
uncle in the book business. He afterward lived in Easton, Pa.,
and in his house the first Methodist prayer-meeting was opened
in that town. In 1822 he removed to Philadelphia, which city
was his home for nearly all the remainder of his life. He pub-
lished his first book in 1820 — " Truth vs. a Wesleyan Methodist,
and other objectors." It was an animadversion on a book entitled
" Methodist Error," the author being John G-. Watson, well known
by his work, " Watson's Annals of Philadelphia." In 1822, he
published " Seven Nights," etc., one of the earliest of temperance
protests. It was four years prior to the organization of the
American Temperance Society, in Boston, Mass., and thus placed
him among the very first advocates of total abstinence. Though
there was no means of communication in the Methodist Church
of that day except through the Methodist Magazine, which he
knew would interdict freedom of discussion on a subject which
was now near his heart and absorbing to his mind — the polity of
the Methodist Church — his intimate acquaintance with Ezekiel
Cooper, and other leading preachers, put him into possession of
the whole Episcopal controversy of the times, and his discriminat-
ing intellect and strong American instincts at once ranked him
among the Reformers. He determined upon a literary venture
at his own risk both pecuniary and ecclesiastical — tentative and
uncertain of the result. In February, 1821, he issued a specimen
number, of which no copy is preserved so far as the writer has
knowledge. It must have been encouraged under its title, The
Wesleyan Repository, as in April following its regular publication
began as a semimonthly magazine of sixteen large octavo pages.

30 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

The terms were $2.50 per annum. The first volume is now before
me, but notice of its contents must be deferred until this brief
sketch of his life is completed. He was for a number of years
superintendent of the Blockely Almshouse and his administration
of reforms and improvements in this vast charity brought him
into conspicuous notice as a citizen. He published the first
volume of the Repository in Trenton, N. J., and on removal to
Philadelphia, the second and third as monthlies in that city. It
closely identified him with the Lay-Representation movement;
it was first publicly broached in his magazine, and he stands the
unquestioned lay father of it. His pen was unremitting in its
advocacy through the Mutual Bights, and other sources. He
was a member and Secretary of the Reform Convention of 1828,
in Baltimore, and of 1830. For this participation he was charged
and arraigned before the Church, but such was the purity of his
character and the excellence of his reputation that the charges
were dismissed, so that he did not have the honor of expulsion
for opinions' sake enjoyed by so many of his coadjutors. Mean-
while, he did much other literary work, commanding an elegant
and forcible style, wrote much for the People's Advocate of
Philadelphia, ranging himself always on the side of popular
liberty and purity of government. He assisted in the publica-
tion of the first American edition of Wesley's Works ; wrote the
article on the Methodist Protestant Church in Kay's edition of
Buck's " Theological Dictionary," and much other editorial work
for Methodist periodicals, the editors begging him not to use his
name, such was the bitter prejudice against even non-partisan
articles, if known to be from the pen of a " Radical " Methodist.
He purchased the copyright of the lives of John and Charles
Wesley by Dr. Whitehead, issued in Boston, Mass., in 1844,
and reissued it in 1845, in handsome style with steel engravings
of the Wesleys, and an Introduction by his son, T. H. Stockton,
already referred to in the first volume. Two editions were struck
off and sold, and yet it is now after fifty years a scarce book,
hierarchal Methodism having frowned upon it in America as
oligarchic Methodism did in England. In the great cholera
panic of 1832 he stood to his post at the almshouse, while offi-
cials of every class fled the city. In 1828 he married his second
wife, Emily H. Drean of Leesburg, Va. Of her children one
became a minister and missionary in the Methodist Episcopal
Church, and another is Erank R. Stockton, well known to the
periodical and book literature of the day. He had broad and

LAY REFORM INITIATED BY STOCKTON 31

liberal views in everything, so that he espoused the anti-restric-
tive rule, and other objections of his son Thomas to the polity of
the Methodist Protestant Church as defined in the Constitution
and Discipline of this Church at its organization, but which it has
since outgrown to its advantage. In 1860, in the seventy-fifth
year of his age, he removed to Burlington, where he was born, to
spend his declining days. But on the 3d of September, 1860, he
met with an accident by the backing of a cart against him on a
wharf of the Delaware which fractured his thigh. He was carried
to his bed, and for two months suffered much in Christian
patience, and on the 20th of November, with his family around
him, peacefully passed away. He lies buried in Burlington near
the grave of his father and his first wife. In 1849 the writer
had an interview with him at the home of Eev. J. T. Ward in
Philadelphia. He was tall, spare, erect, and of commanding
figure, affable yet dignified, courteous yet firm, — Love, Truth,
and Bight were written upon every lineament. Occasion will be
had often to refer to him in the succeeding pages.

The Wesleyan Repository and Religious Intelligencer made its
appearance as a semimonthly periodical, April 12, 1821, printed
at Trenton, N. J., and edited by William S. Stockton. Its
introduction says : " We intend that the columns of our paper
shall be open for the reception of communications which have for
their object the glory of God, and the good of mankind. . Our
readers are informed that communications, having for their object
the improvement of church discipline, must be free from such
expressions as are frequently dictated by an overheated zeal, and
sometimes even by the evil passions. If free from evil in their
design and tendency, essays on forms of church government will
be freely admitted to a place in our columns." From the purpose
thus stated and qualified it may be safely asserted that the peri-
odical never departed in its three years' existence despite the
calumnies uttered against it. Nicholas Snethen's biographer
says : " All its correspondents, I believe, except one, were
Methodists ; more than twenty of them were preachers, but four-
teen at least were, or had been, itinerants. . . • Nicholas Snethen,
Ezekiel Cooper, James Smith (Baltimore), Henry B. Bascom,
Samuel K. Jennings, Asa Shinn, and others, prominent Beformers,
came in later. The leading writers, however, were Nicholas
Snethen and the editor. My father's name is connected with
more than fifty articles, but Mr. Stockton's with nearly one
hundred and fifty. In the eighth number of the first volume

32 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

two editorial articles on 'Church Government' appeared. In
one of these 'Lay Delegation' was first uttered." Mr. Snethen
in his Introduction to his " Essays on Lay-Representation," thus
refers to these articles : " The publication of these broke silence,
and to break silence on the subject of church government in those
days called for no common resolution. But the credit, not of a
mere beginner, is due to Mr. Stockton ; his efforts in behalf of
' Lay Representation ' were unwearied, and knew no bounds short
of necessity."1 Alluding to these two editorials, Mr. Stockton,
in 1849, said: "These two editorials were the first direct
assault upon the M. E. Church government. I wrote to Mr.
Snethen that I had brought an old house about my head."

The periodical was stanchly Methodist, and gave considerable
space to its foreign missionary work; it was pronounced in its
temperance and anti-slavery sentiments, the latter class of
articles written principally by James Smith. The two on
" Church Government " by Stockton were signed " A Methodist,"
and were animadverted upon favorably by Snethen, but without
signature. Others followed Snethen, assuming various pseudo-
nyms. These articles, however, made up but a small portion
of each number. As the periodical grew in circulation it was
criticised divergently, the friends of the old regime not being
slow in discovering " firebrands, arrows, and death " in these
mild-tempered discussions, so that as early as August, 1821, the
editor said : " But permit us with all possible sincerity to say
that we do not think our external economy is so perfect, as to
make it necessary for any one to deprive writers and friends of
their inherent right to think, speak, write, and publish. We claim
no exemption from responsibility, — all we claim is the privilege
of freemen, of Christians."

All the writers on Reform were careful from the beginning
to avow that under no circumstances would schism be encouraged
— they meant to secure changes from within. Rev. John R.
Williams, a local minister from Baltimore, became a contributor
after nine months, and speaking for himself and others, says.
"Every author who has written for the paper has explicitly dis-
avowed all intention to revolutionize or divide the Society, and
there is not a paragraph in the work calculated to bring about
such a melancholy state of things." His nom de plume was
"Amicus." March 28, 1822, Snethen addressed a Memorial to
the Philadelphia Conference, calling upon it to stand by liberal
1 Frank R. Stockton in Colhouer's " Sketches of the Founders."

WBITERS IN THE WESLEY AN REPOSITORY 33

sentiments. It was signed "Thousands," and probably had its
effect with the efforts of Cooper to carry it solidly against
M'Kendree and Soule. In the same number Ezekiel Cooper
made his first appearance as a contributor in an incidental cor-
rection of Snethen in a historical matter as to Beverly Allen.
He signed himself "A Methodist." In this number Hon. P.
B. Hopper of Maryland also appeared in the controversy

When the first volume closed it had reached perhaps five hun-
dred subscribers, and this, Snethen says, was its maximum cir-
culation. The whole of the three volumes in my possession are
verified as to all the contributors by W- S. Stockton, who did it
in a series of articles for the Western Recorder, February, 1850,
and his own original copy, which found its way into Drew Theo-
logical Library through F. B. Stockton in the first two volumes
only, with his marginal annotations. These have been copied
into my set, so that when authorship is spoken of in these pages
there can be no doubt as to verification. As the periodical very
soon came under ban it was largely subscribed for secretly and
surreptitiously circulated. After seventy years it seems impos-
sible to realize it, and the modern school of preachers and lay-
men must marvel at the fact. Yet every number was read by
many others and became a nucleus of illumination, and a centre
of Beform. The bishops and not a few of the presiding elders
found access to it. Bobert, the gifted son of John Emory, is
careful to declare in his effort to vindicate his father from being
a " Badical " that he was not a subscriber. But his brother-in-
law, Dr. Sellers, was, and a Radical contributor, and there can
be no doubt that Emory carefully read every number of it ; for,
during its publication he was recognized as a Reformer by its
friends, and was in their confidence fully.

The second volume of the Repository came to its close with the
addition of notable writers. Dr. T. E. Bond, who was a sub-
scriber, wrote one article on the " Relation of the Children to the
Church." He, like Emory, was recognized as a Reformer, and
had their confidence. J G. Watson of Philadelphia became a
contributor. Henry 15. I'ascom became a subscriber and entered
the lists as a bold advocate of Reform, while " Baltimore " James
Smith wrote with cogency for the new measures. Snethen,
always in the van, with Stockton and Hopper, Richard Sneath,
J. R. Williams, and Gideon Davis were pressing the polemics to
the very gates. But such was the fear of detection as supporters
of it that the editor and proprietor was often straitened for

34 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

means to keep it floating, suffering much pecuniary loss. Its
literary character was high, and its mechanical appearance first
class. All wrote anonymously, as it was well understood that
open support of it meant social, business, and ecclesiastical
ostracism.

The third volume was meaty and advanced, but the same
amenities of debate are observed, and for polemical papers stand
to-day specimens of Christian discussion. This is no random
statement; let the pages be examined, and the impartial mind
of to-day will be surprised to know that these animadversions
brought upon the authors the charge of "enemies of Methodism."
Rev. Cornelius Springer of Ohio wrote a series of articles ad-
dressed to the senior Bishop, under the pseudonym "Cincinna-
tus," which excited great attention, as they were construed as a
personal attack — wherefore only the prejudiced could see. And
now was revived a question aside from the primal purpose of all
who had written to this date, — Lay- Representation pure and
simple as the issue, — the local preachers' contest. The Balti-
more District Conference, nearly all of whom were inchoate Re-
formers, issued a circular to like districts throughout the United
States, calling for larger recognition. It was signed by Samuel
K. Jennings, Alexander McCaine (who had retired from the itin-
erancy and was school-teaching), and James B. Williams. The
agitation was continued through the volume, space being given
to the matter, until, as Snethen put it, a triangular warfare was
inaugurated. As all of them were friends of lay -representation
also, it was impossible to discriminate against them. There was
also published a correspondence between Bev. Jesse Head of
Kentucky and Bishop M'Kendree about a certain arbitrary act of
administration by which he was expelled the Conference under
aggravations sanctioned by the three bishops. It led to a seces-
sion under a Discipline which recognized the fundamental prin-
ciples of a separation of the legislative, judicial, and executive
powers of government, but the particulars demand no further
space except to note a fact of history not elsewhere found. It
is probable that the movement finally merged into that of 1827-30.
Alexander McCaine made an effort to secure publication of the
local preachers' circular in the Methodist Magazine, but did not
succeed ; the publishers printed on the cover of the magazine in
September, 1823, a standing notice that nothing would be ad-
mitted of a controversial character, "which go to disturb the
peace and harmony of the Church." All petitioners were re-

PARTISAN COURSE OF METHODIST MAGAZINE 35

f erred to the General Conference for redress of grievances. Sub-
sequently, however, its columns were freely used in opposition
to the Reformers of every class. This refusal of a hearing
aroused the lion in McCaine, and he became a subscriber and
contributor to the Repository. In contrast its pages were open
to its opponents, and several availed themselves of the privilege.

Now appeared a series of letters from Snethen addressed to
Eeformers throughout the Methodist Episcopal Church, in which
he deprecated the sending of delegates to the ensuing General
Conference as premature, insisting absolutely that there should
be no schism and holding to extreme conservative ground, sug-
gesting petitions, and in default of a favorable hearing the first
organized movement. As out of it after came the Union Socie-
ties, his words must be quoted : " But if they remain inflexible,
that we then proceed to organize ourselves into a kind of patriotic
societies, for the purpose of obtaining, and securing to ourselves,
the right of ecclesiastical suffrage, and acquiring a knowledge of
our numbers, views, and proceedings; and that so soon as we
become sufficiently numerous and united, we signify to Travelling
Preachers our free, sovereign will, and let them know that the
time is come for them to yield to necessity, as they would not to
justice and reason; we may add that if they persist, all the blame
and all the evil of dividing themselves from the majority of the
Church must be upon their own heads." Thus is outlined a
procedure which subsequent events made it wise to follow, as the
only alternative for Reformers, — a procedure so reasonable, con-
servative, and within the privilege of Methodists, that it does
not seem to have occurred to Snethen that expedients under cover
of law would be found by the episcopacy not only to neutralize
these methods for securing reforms from within the Church, but
to visit upon those who adopted the procedure unmerited punish-
ment,— the extreme penalty of ecclesiastical law, — expulsion.
The dominating influence of Snethen held in check those who
would have precipitated separation under the aggravations of
delay, denial, and accusation of moral turpitude. In this at
least there was concert of opinion and action among the Re-
formers : to keep within their privilege along the lines laid out
by Snethen, to petition and remonstrate, to cooperate, and thus
enlarge the area of intelligent apprehension of their aims by peace-
able discussion and the use of the press at their own charges.

The writings of "Baltimore " James Smith in these volumes of
the Repository attracted particular attention for their dialectical

36 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

lucidity and mastery of facts. He had been a member of the
General Conference of 1808, and of the first delegated Conference
of 1812, participated in the debates, and fully understood the
merits of the pending issues. In 1820 he was stationed at old
St. George's with Ezekiel Cooper and the Philadelphia James
Smith, so called to distinguish them, and in 1821 he was super-
annuated and located in Queen Anne's County, Md., where he
had the association of Hon. P. B. Hopper, Dr. Sellers, and inci-
dentally of John Emory, and the views he expressed were prob-
ably shared by all of them as brother Reformers. He was the
author of a series of articles running through several volumes of
the Repository on the Constitution. The fifth of the series is in
the August number of volume third, and so important is it that
citations from it are demanded as settling the question it dis-
cusses beyond any man's power of successful controversion. It
is commended specially to all the Constitutionalists of the
Methodist Church, South, of the Dr. Tigert type, and all the anti-
Constitutionalists of the Methodist Church, North, and as answer-
ing their recent quest for a "Constitution," but not yet found.

Smith, after carefully laying his premises, thus concludes:
" The question, then, is again reduced to this shape, viz. : Were
the preachers who were members of the General Conference of
1808 a convention to frame and adopt a Constitution for the
Church, or not? If the answer be given in the affirmative, the
fact must be assumed in one of two shapes: either, first, that
the whole body of the elders, who had a right to be members of
that Conference, were the whole of the community, in law ; or,
secondly, that the Annual Conferences, by election, invested them
with powers as their representatives, to frame and adopt a Con-
stitution for them, according to their own judgment, which should
without any confirmatory act of these Annual Conferences be
obligatory on themselves and the Church. Now, if the first of
these assumptions be correct, why did the presiding Bishop, on
his last tour round to the Annual Conferences previous to the
General Conference of 1808, propose to the Annual Conferences
to instruct the preachers who might go to the General Conference
to adopt an order that representatives should compose the General
Conference in future, instead of all the elders who might choose
to go? If the whole community (in law) went to that General
Conference, why impart such instruction or ask such permission?
But, secondly, how could these elders who were expected to go
to that General Conference be invested with powers to form a

JAMES SMITH'S IBREFUTABLE ARGUMENT 37

Constitution whose operations should limit the legislative powers
of future General Conferences, when nothing was mentioned to
the Annual Conferences by the Bishop, who proposed the measure,
about a Constitution which should have the effect so to limit the
powers of future General Conferences, nor was the subject in any-
way agitated at all. But only to adopt an order or so change the
government as to send fewer members to the General Conference,
in future to prevent embarrassment arising from so many travel-
ling preachers to and from General Conference, from remote parts
of the country; and to secure to the Annual Conferences at a
distance from the seat of the General Conference, at the same
time, a more equitable and proportionate influence in the body
which makes rules for all. Nothing, that we know of, was said
about a Constitution to limit the powers of future General Con-
ferences, but merely to adopt an order, by a majority of that
General Conference, to send representatives in future invested
with legislative powers, instead of all the elders. If any of the
acts of the General Conference of 1808 can lay claim to the
character of a Constitution, we conceive it is that which bears on
the point of constituting delegates; because, on this point, the
Annual Conferences appear to have been consulted, and perhaps
may have given consent and instruction on it; but as they seem
to have been consulted on nothing else, and gave authority to do
no more, the whole of the restrictive articles which go to abridge
the legislative powers of future General Conferences are purely
gratuitous, and have no restrictive authority whatever, until that
authority shall be given them by the Annual Conferences, adopt-
ing them as shown in our third essay on this subject. But if the
Annual Conferences did, previously to 1808, authorize the Gen-
eral Conference of 1808 to impose a change on the essential
principles of the government, so as to make all the General Con-
ferences after that date delegated bodies, instead of consulting
all the elders, I am inclined to think that that order is as authori-
tative as any other principle in our usages. But if the Annual
Conferences invested that General Conference with no powers to
make any other change in the government, which was the fact,
then all that they did further is but gratuitous assumption, and
of course is of no constitutional authority. Whether the Annual
Conferences did properly invest that General Conference with
powers to make even this change or not, we are not prepared to
say. But if they did not invest the General Conference of 1808
with the powers to make the future General Conferences dele-

38 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

gated bodies, I do not conceive that their having done so makes
them legitimately such. And if so, then in our opinion things
stand as they did before 1808. But if they did authorize that
General Conference to make the future General Conferences dele-
gated bodies, we are confident they did not authorize them to
restrict their future legislation within certain bounds (such as
the restrictive articles specify), either specifically or impliedly;
for they do not appear to have been invested with a power to
form a Constitution on general terms, but only to do a specific
thing, i.e. to reduce the number of members of future General
Conferences. But here we would remark that that investiture
was not of a nature to authorize them to make a Constitution,
which implies the giving of certain powers to certain function-
aries, as well as restricting those functionaries in the exercise of
those powers. But implied only a restriction of certain powers,
formerly held by many, to a fewer number, supposing the old
Constitution (or order of things) to remain, wherein that Con-
ference had not been instructed to alter it. And as their instruc-
tions went no further, and attempted to restrict the power of
future General Conferences in a way that they were not author-
ized to do, their acts in this matter were assumed (being unau-
thorized), and are of no authority whatever as a Constitution,
according to American doctrine, which at the time appears to be
the doctrine of reason. Hence we are inclined to believe that
the making of the General Conferences in future a delegated
body, instead of all the elders, was a legitimate act, because it
seems to have been authorized ; but the acts which go to abridge
their legislative powers are not obligatory, because unauthor-
ized."

This article and others were signed "Philonomos," though he
wrote under other pseudonyms. It literally tears to shreds all
arguments for a Constitution in the restrictive articles, as having
even Annual Conference consent. So the Methodist Episcopal
Church was compelled by the exigency of 1844 to acknowledge
it and so the civil courts have decided, and so it is that the great
Church named is floundering to-day in the uncertainties of abso-
lute negations ; " Kules and Regulations " are all that it has, and
these are liable to alteration, addition, or abrogation at the will
of every sovereign General Conference. The Methodist Epis-
copal Church, South, under a similar logical necessity, in the
Bishop Andrew case adhered to the old constitutional, traditional
theory, the delight of Asbury, M'Kendree, and Soule, with the

ELDER, LOCAL PREACHER, AND LAY QUESTIONS 39

right of episcopal veto to this day on measures deemed by them
unconstitutional. It is phenomenal, however, that a little more
than a score of years after, their General Conference of 1866
enacted a violation of one of the restrictive articles, i.e. the Con-
stitution, " The General Conference shall be composed of delegates
from the Annual Conferences," and as these were composed from
"the beginning" of preachers itinerant only, to the exclusion of
the locality and the laity, in that it made provision for an equal
delegation of laymen in the General Conference, and four dele-
gates from each presiding elder's district in the Annual Con-
ferences. Happily for the liberal advance of this Church and its
internal peace there was no Bishop to " veto " the innovation, two-
thirds voted for it in the General Conference, and on its reference
to the Annual Conferences they by a three-fourths vote adopted
it. The vote in the General Conference on a final test was
ninety-seven yeas and forty-one nays. These forty-one were
evidently "Bourbons," who believed it "unconstitutional." The
large majority saw, however, that it was an emergency that de-
manded a waiver of the constitutional myths, and this Church is
awaiting the emergency that will repudiate the Asbury-M'Ken-
dree-Soule Episcopacy as an " order " with its veto power. In
its proper chronological place more will be said of this lay-
delegation feature in the Church, South.

The Repository fairly bristled with incandescent contributions
as to their magnetic logic and contagious enthusiasm for Reform
for the last nine months of its brilliant career. It developed the
triangular contention, however, already referred to, the local
preachers pushing their claims to recognition, not content to wait
until they could be secured by the success of the lay-representa-
tion movement of Snethen, Smith, and Cooper, with what damage
to the cause itself will be presently seen. Dr. Jennings, as a
leader of the local preachers and a lay-representationist, made his
appearance in the August number on the refusal of the Methodist
Magazine to publish their circular. The Reform movement now
was pressed along three separate lines : the Elder question, the
Local Preacher question, and the Lay question. Like the Refor-
mation under Luther, there were party leaders with divergent
views, until the cause was embarrassed to the verge of defeat.
Snethen and Stockton saw the shoals and heard the distant
breakers, and admonished accordingly, and by their wise manage-
ment the ship was kept off shore. Five hundred copies of the
Repository found their silent way to as many ardent supporters,

40 HISTOBY OF METHODIST REFORM

and these copies found numerous readers, so that it is safe to say
that three thousand sympathizers were scattered through the
Conferences and among the laity. Baltimore, Philadelphia, and
Cincinnati were great centres. In the latter city, claiming the
revolutionary right of peaceful assemblage for redress of griev-
ances, a public meeting was held of the laity, on the 19th of
August, 1823, William Disney, President, and John Forbes,
Secretary, and a circular was addressed the "Members of the
Methodist Episcopal Church throughout the United States,"
calmly and masterfully reviewing their ignoring in the govern-
ment of the Church. It may be found on pages 190-193 of the
Repository for 1823. It is denominated " a large and respectable
meeting of the members," and the collateral evidence is that it
composed the very cream of Methodism in that city. Indeed, it
was never questioned, even by its opponents, that this was its
character wherever a nucleus was found ; it largely composed the
brains, piety, and social force of Methodism.

In default of other vehicles the secular press was sometimes
employed to reach the people, and distant points found letter-link
connection beyond what the Repository supplied. The bishops,
the elders, and for the most part the itinerants, set themselves
against it diligently, profiting by every unadvised word and every
lapse of order and every influence that power and patronage could
evoke to frustrate the movement and the movers. In a " Voice
from the West," an article reviewing the obstructions used to
prevent the circulation of the Repository, signed " Cincinnatus,
Jr.," attributed to H. B. Bascom, though not so identified by
Stockton, and bearing every ear-mark of his composition, a fact is
mentioned at which one knows not whether to laugh or cry : " Two
elders arose immediately in succession, and admonished the
people, and strove to guard them against the prevailing errors
of the day; after which a respectable young minister arose, and,
as he thought, drew from his pocket a single number of the
Repository, dashed it on the floor in the presence of the people,
and with gushing tears exclaimed, 'There is the accursed thing! '
but it so happened that while he was attempting to be so patheti-
cally sublime, he unintentionally drew from his pocket with the
number before mentioned the discipline of our Church, which
shared the same indignity and became the object of the same
anathema."

A series now appeared, "Letters on Church Government," by
" Martin Luther," Alexander McCaine. They are models of con-

EZEKIEL COOPER'S REFORM PLAN 41

troversial writing, though incisive and unsparing in logic, and as
the writer wishes this to be believed, insomuch as McCaine was
" outlawed " for his contributions to Reform by the General Con-
ference of 1828, he has arranged that these volumes of the
Repository shall always be accessible to any honest inquirer.
And subject to the same test, it is asserted that this third volume
is characterized with most of the features that gave imperishable
fame to the " Letters of Junius " and the Addison papers in the
"Spectator." It will not be forgotten that the sticklers for the
old forms and absolute methods had raised this wind; they were
alarmed at the signs of the coming whirlwind. Gideon Davis, a
liberally educated layman of Georgetown, D. C, appeared as a
polished and trenchant writer under the signature "Waters."
Now came a writer with the nom de plume of " Anthroposophy,"
and later on other articles signed "A Methodist;" the former
introduced the " Question of Lay-delegation," and the latter "The
Outlines of a Proposed Plan for a Lay-delegation ; " they were
from the gifted pen of Ezekiel Cooper of the Philadelphia Con-
ference. It outlines a plan for equal representation — and this
is the term he employs with propriety in the body of it — in the
General Conference, with careful provision for the election of the
laymen in primary assemblies of the male membership, and there-
fore honestly representative of them. The positions taken by
him are unanswerable, and broad as the ground taken by Snethen.
A few concluding sentences of the second article will exhibit its
animus : " The Laity and Local Brethren are awake to their rights
and privileges; they cannot be by any opiates lulled to sleep
again; nor by any weapons be driven from the ground of their
claim and demand, as an inalienable right. The sooner it is
yielded the better; for be ye well assured that Lay-delegation
must ultimately be adopted, or the cause of the Itinerancy, and
union and peace, will be greatly endangered, if not ruined and
destroyed. United we stand, divided we fall." In a later article
signed "Philo-Episcopos," he cites the language of M'Kendree
in 1792, already twice given, " It is an insult to my understand-
ing," etc. The plan of Cooper was reviewed and criticised by
Jennings, McCaine, and Williams because it did not provide at
once for proper recognition of the local preachers. Stockton
endeavored to allay the difference in an article signed " A Lay-
man," and warned the locality, "Let us not furnish the repre-
sentatives of the travelling ministry with any pretext for saying,
' We cannot agree to legislate to you your rights, because of your

42 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

own disagreements.' " So the Luthers of this ecclesiastical Ref-
ormation had their Erasmuses, and as the leading lights of the
doctrinal Reformation differed as to the scope and method to be
observed, so now the strong individualities developed could not
agree in the details, though fundamentals were clear enough to
them all. It was the only bond that held them together, and
that they did hold together is in proof that fundamentals were
involved; the personal equation of each leader was finally lost in
them, and made the Reform so unlike the secession of O'Kelly,
which it resembled in nothing, that the principles lived and are
the issues of to-day in all the Methodisms, and are surely mould-
ing them into conformity to what Snethen, Shinn, Stockton, and
Cooper taught.

Ezekiel Cooper did not further elaborate his Plan as called for;
it was clear-cut and distinctive, and has the merit of having
furnished the foundation principles on which the Constitution and
Discipline of the Methodist Protestant Church were subsequently
built; but he did review in an exhaustive and masterful manner,
at the request of the Local Preachers' Association of Philadelphia,
the criticisms of Jennings, McCaine, and Williams. The claim
they set up of an equal representation in the General Conference
with the Travelling preachers and the Laity was not entertained
by the Local preachers as a class, as is plain from the articles in
the Repository at the time. Their dictum was even repudiated
by the Baltimore Local Preachers' Association, from which it
professed to emanate,1 but the introduction of this element
seriously and needlessly, as will be seen, complicated the situa-
tion, wrought irreparable damage to the cause of Reform, and
brought the issues to the General Conference of 1824, with its
advocates presenting a divided front.

McCaine concluded his letters addressed to the bishops, and in
ending says: "I have studied all along to avoid personalities,
knowing and feeling that respect is due to you, to the Church,
to the public, to the subject, and to myself. If after all I have
expressed myself in an objectionable manner, let it be pointed
out, and if the subject be not injured by the alteration, it shall
be altered. I have now done what I felt to be a duty, and sub-
scribe myself with great respect your brother in the Gospel of
Christ. Martin Luther." It proved him, up to this stage of
the discussion at least, a Christian gentleman in controversy, and

1 They were the "Committee of Correspondence" for that Association, and
spoke for it in this capacity only.

CALL FOB CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION 43

aggravates the invidious treatment he afterward received from
the authorities, though it was an unwitting mode of their un-
willing confession that his arguments were unanswerable. Rome
made the same disposition of Huss ; as he could neither be silenced
nor refuted, one method was left, — "burn the heretic! "

The West Jersey District Conference addressed a Memorial to
the General Conference asking that a Convention of the Church
might be called to agree upon a Constitution, a method of adjust-
ing the legal and logical and factual difficulties of the Methodist
Episcopal Church which has been over and over again since that
time suggested ; and now that the Church is still at its endeavor
to " find a Constitution, " despite the nugatory labors of the High
Commission appointed for the purpose by the General Conference
of 1888, it has been proposed, as late as this year of our Lord
1894, through the New York Christian Advocate, by an influential
layman of the Church. What a happy deliverance such a pro-
cedure would be out of the errors of 1784 and 1808, and for that
of 1844! Snethen and Stockton and James Smith of Baltimore
continued to use their offices to conciliate the Local preachers who
were so insistent, the last ably pointing out that the ensuing
General Conference, even if disposed calmly to consider the peti-
tions of the Reformers, that its right to legislate in their favor
would demand attention ; if the enactments of 1808 were a Con-
stitution, then action would be barred by it, and if not, then a
Convention might have to be called to give it such investiture, so
that he was not hopeful of action, and drops this caution, " And
as we hope it is the wish of all to banish ecclesiastical controversy
from the ranks of Methodism, we wish to see a course pursued
more likely to effect that truly desirable object."

Bascom appears again "From the West," in scathing review
of the presiding elder Greenbury R. Jones, of the Scioto District,
Ohio. Jones replies at length, and is given space, be it noted,
in this magazine devoted to free discussion, and then in rejoinder
he was pulverized by four members of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, who among other delectable bits of information disclose
the fact that said Jones had averred in the heat of a discussion
on Reform that " he would spill blood rather than submit to such
innovations as are contemplated by the friends of Reform." The
burden of the petitions prepared and sent to the ensuing Gen-
eral Conference from meetings of the members and from Local
Preachers' Associations called for a Convention as the best ex-
pedient for harmonizing and settling the Church on a secure

44 HISTOET OF METHODIST BEFOBM

foundation, while the temper and spirit of these petitions may be
judged from the specimens which are found in the Repository ;
and in view of the heat and distemper engendered by the con-
troversy, it is complimentary to the Christian forbearance of the
Reformers that they state their case with such moderation. The
documents are extant and open to investigation. Conspicuous
for its moderation and respectful phrasing is the Memorial of the
Baltimore District Conference.

" Cincinnatus," Rev. Cornelius Springer of the West, continued
to use his pen to the close of the third volume. In his last article
he furnishes a chapter of facts easily paralleled in other sections
of the Church, and the citation of it will answer for all. " In
the administration of discipline over the lay-members, high-
handed measures have frequently been pursued, such as burning
or tearing up class papers, and by this one sweeping act turning
out of the Church the whole class at once, scratching off the
names of respectable members from the class roll, and thereby
expelling them without the formalities of a trial. I have known
instances of a Travelling Preacher preferring charges against
members for censuring his administration ; and after picking his
own jury, and becoming his own judge, to exercise the Church
censures against those who dared to find fault with his doings.
Another case I know, where an Itinerant Preacher preferred a
charge of heresy against a local preacher of respectable standing,
and who, previous to his expulsion, sustained an unimpeachable
moral and religious character. A committee of the delinquent's
peers were summoned to sit in judgment on his case. They
brought in a verdict of 'Not guilty.' But the ruling spirit was
much displeased at the decision, and he arbitrarily appealed (I
say the appeal was arbitrary because the discipline allows none
in such a case. It is the obvious intention of that rule on the
subject of the trial of local preachers to prevent the travelling
ministry, should any be so disposed, from oppressing local
brethren) the case to the Quarterly Meeting Conference; and his
majesty, the presiding elder, took jurisdiction thereon, and
through the united influence of these two managing geniuses the
heretic was hurled out of the Church, and its curses fulminated
after him. The consequences of these proceedings were that they
opened the way for a wider spread and a more deeply rooted
heresy than ever, and they also engendered party feeling and
schism in many a breast where such never before existed. And,
sir, instances have not been wanting where the ministry have

SPECIMEN ARBITRARY ACT 45

preferred charges against the lay department for reading and
supporting your Depository."

The controversy was not slow in developing that species of the
human invertebrate known popularly as the trimmer, both among
the membership and the ministry. This moral infirmity appears
whenever the issue is between Principle and Power, and in this
history is constantly repeating itself, both in the State and the
Church. Quite a large number of the travelling preachers espoused
the lay cause, especially in the centres of agitation, and so with the
laity, but there were great sections of the Church into which the
light had never penetrated; the means of promulgation were so
circumscribed and the avenues so jealously watched that in the
quadrennium up to 1824, while the Keformers constituted a re-
spectable body as to numbers, and eminently so as to standing,
they were an insignificant minority, if their cause had to be
judged by this criterion — and so judged it was by the Episcopal
powers. Even this minority was put to a test that few were able
to withstand. The test was well described by Alexander Hamil-
ton: "In the general course of human nature, a power over a
man's substance amounts to a power over his will."' The proofs
are abundant that this power was exercised. There was another
power employed none the less potential, that of promotion, the
exact converse of the other. The line of contest became sharply
defined in the Annual Conference elections for delegates to the
General Conference of 1824. An examination of the rosters
respectively of 1820 and 1824 will reveal how patronage and
power wrought a change of sentiment or was exercised to exclude
those who were inflexible. A comparison will be made when in
the ensuing chapter the General Conference of 1824 is fully
considered.

CHAPTER III

Prior to the ensuing General Conference of 1824, the leading Reformers, Grif-
fith, Morgan, Waugh, and Emory, issued a circular Address again favoring the
Elective Eldership — Counted without their host; secret combine of the anti-
reformers for their defeat as delegates and of their reform measure ; the strat-
egy of the movement and how it succeeded — The Episcopal Address and its
strange recommendation to kill by anticipation the reform memorials — Dr.
T. E. Bond and Thomas Kelso as Reformers at this time; proofs — Answer of
the Conference to the Reformers at the close of the session; the "suspended
resolutions" disposed of at the same time by the machination of the same
parties; how it was accomplished; full history of it — Alarm of the majority
over their action and retrace their steps in part — Soule and Hedding as sec-
tional bishops chosen — Diplomacy of Emory — Division into Episcopal Districts
as foreshadowing the sectional sentiment and its connection with the division
of 1844 — The bishops' meeting to select a delegate to the British Conference
an abortion for the same reason ; the secret memoranda — Eminent Reformers.

A few months before the election of delegates to the General
Conference of 1824 took place in the Baltimore Conference, the
leaders of the Elective Presiding Elder question felt it to be
auspicious to address the Annual Conference upon the subject.
They had lost no courage, as is manifest from the Address itself,
but they were as evidently not posted in the silent, not to say
insidious, influences which were at work to accomplish both the
defeat of the measure, with all that it implicated of further
Reforms, but the downfall of the bold advocates as well. The
Mutual Rights, etc., of September 5 and 20, 1828, has the text of
the full Address, but the writer has failed to find it elsewhere,
though it was printed in pamphlet by the authors at the time,
circulated through the Baltimore Conference, and signed with
their own names, as their confidence seems to have been equal to
their courage. Robert Emory, in his "Life of Bishop Emory," 1
gives free extracts from it, or allows his venerated father, then
six years deceased, to do so in his own effort to vindicate himself
from the charge of being a "Radical." The authorship of the
Address is frankly admitted by both ; it was from the facile pen
of John Emory- W. S. Stockton had a copy of the text in full,
and assigns as his reason for not republishing the whole : " The

1 "The Life of the Rev. John Emory, D.D.," etc., by one of his sons. 8vo.
380 pp. New York. Book Concern. 1841.

46

EMORY'S ADDRESS TO GENERAL CONFERENCE, 1824 47

Address is confined to the consideration of the 'suspended reso-
lutions ' of 1820. This subject having been discussed in the
Repository, we need not apologize for having room only for the
following extract." The heading is also given: "Address to
the Baltimore Annual Conference, by the Rev. Alfred Griffith,
Gerard Morgan, Beverly Waugh, and John Emory." They say:
"The suspended resolutions give us very little solicitude as to
any importance of their own ; nor are we concerned for their own
sake how they are disposed of. But at the time of their passage
we did consider them important, because we considered them in
the light of a compromise, and as partaking in some sort of the
sacredness of a treaty. The manner in which the first essay was
made to arrest them we deemed it still more important to resist,
because we viewed it as the germ of individual supremacy over the
General Conference, and one which the whole character of its in-
cipient indications compelled us to believe would eventually grow
to this, if not promptly and effectually put down at its very first
appearance. Of this all ecclesiastical history was our warning.
It remains for you, Brethren, to determine whether those ex-
traordinary proceedings shall receive your sanction, and be in-
vested with all the force of binding precedents. For ourselves,
whatever inconveniences it may bring upon us, we sincerely
rejoice that our votes stand recorded against them. The re-
sponsibility is now taken from us, and rests with you; and we
call upon you to look to it in the face of the Church and of the
world. Remember the force of precedents. Remember the tenacious
grasp with which power is held when once acquired. Its march is
ever onward and its tremendous tendency is to accumulation. You
are to act not only for the present age, and with reference to those
who are now in office, but for posterity- Look forward then, we
beseech you, to the influences with which your acts will descend
upon them, and to the aspect with which they will be exhibited
upon the page of our future history." The italics, except the
word our, are by the writer, as singling out epigrammatical sen-
tences, which like those given by M'Kendree in 1792, become the
catch-phrases of Eeformers, and as crystallizing a universal
axiom.

It will be seen that the authors take ground which advances
them beyond the mere occasion of the suspended resolutions and
plants them upon Reform principles, with their ever widening
application. It is always pitiable when a man, after accepting
promotion in the line of his prior denunciation of the exercise of

48 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

power, seeks to mitigate and explain away his record. After
Emory's elevation as Assistant Book Agent in 1824, and General
Agent in 1828, and Bishop in 1832, these attempts to dissociate
himself from the Reformers, as found in his son Robert's "Life,"
may have been satisfactory to his adhering friends, but will not
be so to impartial readers.1 The strained effort at exculpation
does not favorably impress a candid reader, and it would have
been more to purpose if his biographer had checked his filial zeal
to do so. It has rendered necessary the use of more space than
would have been the writer's preference, so for the present this
phase of the subject is dismissed with a few observations on his
associates in the Address.

Alfred Griffith, the first signer, was one of the strong men of
the Baltimore Conference, but now aging, and who, yielding to
the adverse pressure of 1824-32, quietly succumbed without los-
ing the respect of his fellow-Reformers. Gerard Morgan was a
reputable preacher, who had been an Elder of leading influence,
but who, like Griffith, was submerged by the refluent wave of

1 Rev. Dr. George Brown, who as a witness is unimpeachable, says: "At the
Conference at Winchester (April, 1824), Beverly Waugh, with some difficulty
obtained leave to read N. Suethen's letter in favor of lay -delegation. It was
heard by that body with mingled indications of favor and displeasure. Joshua
Soule read a paper inflicting some heavy censure on John Emory for certain state-
ments made by Emory and others in a pamphlet involving Soule's course at the
General Conference of 1820. Emory, in the course of his reply, admitted the right
of the Methodist people to a lay -delegation, and said they ought to have it, if they
so desired. Soule presided in a caucus held by the anti-reform party to nominate
delegates to the General Conference, and in his remarks before taking the chair,
went against nominating any reformer, as the ancient order of things must be
strictly maintained. " (The reformers also held a caucus, but as has been

found all their candidates were defeated.) . "After Conference adjourned

Emory and Waugh took me with them to a self-defence caucus meeting of the
friends of ecclesiastical liberty. This was the first time I ever took an open,
public part with the Reformers." See Brown's "Itinerant Life," pp. 123, 124.
Cincinnati and Springfield. 1808. 8vo, pp. 456. Cloth. It will often be cited
hereafter for testimony. The quotation italicized by the writer is in proof that
the Eldership question and Lay-Representation hinged upon each other, and makes
nugatory the filial effort of Emory's son to dissociate him from the " Radical
controversy." Brown says further, on p. 124, "This defeat (to the General
Conference), in connection with that of the local preacher claim to a share in the
government of the Church, led Emory and Waugh, and most of the others, it is
supposed, to abandon the cause of reform." As motives those assigned are satis-
factory, and shall be further elaborated in this History. Men have a right to
desist from the advocacy of a plan found encumbered by others with objection-
able issues, but the obloquy cannot thus be removed from those of them who
afterward denounced the principles involved, as these are apart from objection-
able complications; and accept promotion, and the exercise of the very powers
their former principles disallowed. This essential distinction shall not be over-
looked in the analysis of the pervert Reformers of these days.

EMORY DEFEATED FOB GENERAL CONFERENCE 49

anti-reform. He was known to posterity through his three
preacher sons, now deceased, of enviable fame in Maryland.
Beverly Waugh has already been introduced as a still-hunt Re-
former. Of mediocre ability, amiable and popular, and his career
an exposition of the proverb, "The prudent man foreseeth the
evil and hideth himself," he was not forgotten for promotion;
made Assistant Book Agent to Emory in 1828, General Agent in
1832, and Bishop in 1836. His administration of the high office
was mild and respectable, and residing in Baltimore he did not
by extremes of utterance, like Emory, forfeit the regard of his old
associates in Reform. It is finally noteworthy that while these
four men were elected to the General Conference of 1820 as
Reformers on the Elder question, not one of them was elected to
the General Conference of 1824, so that while their Address may
have had its effect in preventing the Baltimore Conference from
indorsing M'Kendree's views, such had been the growth of Epis-
copal influence that they were marked for defeat, and a full dele-
gation elected known to be anti-reformers. The same result
was largely brought about in the other eleven Conferences, as
will be seen when the delegations are analyzed.

Scriptural doctrines and helpful means of grace continued to
triumph in Methodism, if an unbalanced government did con-
tinually foment discussion, and arbitrary stretches of authority
provoke protest. The past quadrennium noted an increase of
white members from 267,618 to 280,427, or 12,809. The per-
centage is small, but the distractions of controversy led not a few
thoughtful people in many communities to stand aloof from a
system which was capable of the abuses exhibited, while others
fell away from its support as incongruous with Christian manli-
ness. All these were stigmatized as "enemies of Methodism,"
whether in or out of .the Church; but the reader will not for
a moment impeach the piety of the adherents of the Asbury-
M'Kendree-Soule plan. With all good conscience and changeless
conviction they esteemed themselves the Levites of the tribes of
Israel, and Methodism as thus interpreted was a sacred ark.
What if the oxen did stumble in hauling it at Nachon's threshing-
floor, the impious Uzzahs who stretched forth their hands under
the impulse to steady it would surely meet no other fate than
that of their prototype against whom " the anger of the Lord was
kindled."

The General Conference of 1824 assembled in Baltimore May 1,
in the Eutaw Street church, under whose pulpit now reposed the

VOL. II — E

50 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

mortal remains of Bishop Asbury. It consisted of 126 members.
Bangs furnishes the full list. A scrutiny of it discloses the fact
that except in a few Conferences where the Beform sentiment
was paramount, Nathan Bangs from the New York, George
Pickering from the New England, Ezekiel Cooper and James
Smith from the Philadelphia, few of the former advocates of an
Elective Eldership were honored with seats in it. In the Balti-
more Conference, despite Emory's Address and the permeation
of the local ministry and the membership with liberal sentiments,
the entire delegation were conservatives and reactionists, such
as Soule, Boszel, Hitt, Beed, Henry Smith, and the two Eryes.
In the other Conferences the Episcopacy was reenforced by Sand-
ford, Martindale, Hedding, Merrill, Fisk, Hardy, George Peck,
the two Chamberlains, Charles Elliott, Greenbury B. Jones,
James B. Einley, Sale, Quinn, and the two Youngs, Peter Cart-
wright, Thomas A. Morris, Beauchamp, Paine, Douglass, Winans,
Capers, Andrews, Morton, Lovick Pierce, Copton, Ware, Bus-
ling, Lawrenson, M'Combs, and Pittman. Emory, who was
stationed in Baltimore, was a visitor, as well as other defeated
Beformers. What must have been his temporary surprise to find
himself named and elected Secretary of the General Conference
despite his record as a Reformer? But so it was. He was a
young man of conspicuous abilities, and is marked for promotion.
M'Kendree, George, and Roberts were all present. Did the first
named out of his earlier experience as a pervert of O'Kelly's start
the whisper which spread over the Conference — Emory for Sec-
retary? A change of mind is sometimes wrought by the force of
association, and preferment is a powerful means of illumination.
Early in the session the fraternal delegates from the Wesleyan
Conference, Revs. Richard Reece and John Hannah, were intro-
duced and submitted their Address, which was to " The General
Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church," etc., — the first
time in just forty years that this title was recognized by the
English brethren, under the favorable influence of Emory's visit
four years earlier.

The Episcopal Address was read and referred. It noted that
" the last four years we have not been favored with extraordinary
revivals of religion ; " " on the subject of Church government
some of our friends have entered into various speculations, and
it seems probable that memorials will be laid before you both
from local preachers and private members. In order to give full
satisfaction, as far as possible, on this point, it may be expedient

GENEBAL CONFEBENCE OF 1824 51

to appoint a committee of address, to prepare circulars, in answer
to such memorials as may be presented." It is a curious recom-
mendation by way of anticipation ; there is no hint of possible
concession, only a method of disposition, and it was so. The
memorials did pour in, and the closing numbers of the third
volume of the Repository have preserved not a few happily, that
posterity wishing to look into the subject might have opportunity
to judge of their " inflammatory " or " slanderous " or " violent "
character. Notwithstanding the efforts of Snethen and Stockton
to unify these memorials on lay-representation, while having a
general end in view, they were diverse, and from various sources,
— individuals, District Conferences, public meetings of the laity,
Sunday-schools, etc. They touched almost all the questions of
controversy which were debated from 1792. It was the misfor-
tune of a good cause, and adroit advantage was taken of it by the
solid conservatives of the Conference. They were from many
sections of the Church, so widespread was the disaffection insti-
gated by the assumptions of M'Kendree and Soule, and imitated
by many presiding elders in the various Conferences. Baltimore
was, however, a storm centre. The original of a copy of a
Memorial 1 addressed to the bishops and Conference is now before
the writer, claiming to represent the views of a convention of
Eeformers, which for literary and logical character might well
challenge the respect and consideration of any deliberative body.
It asks for representation for the local preachers and the laity in
the General Conference ; for be it noted that up to 1824 there was

1 This Memorial from the Baltimore meeting of the Reformers is evidently as
stated the " original of the copy sent to the General Conference," and is well pre-
served, but is unsigned so that even the authorship of it cannot be certainly
stated, though it bears the literary ear-marks of Snethen. It claimed to emanate
from the " General Convention of the delegates of the members and local preach-
ers of the Methodist Episcopal Church friendly to reform." It meets first calmly
and argumentatively the objection that there is no analogy between a civil and
religious government. Then it takes the distinct ground of right as over against
the Bond-Kelso idea of expediency, and asks for "legislative liberty." It pro-
poses that the representation in the General Conference shall give to the local
preachers one-fourth, and the laity one-fourth, leaving the remaining half to be
composed of the Itinerants, than which nothing more equitable could be proposed.
It asks that the General Conference shall construe the section of the discipline as
to "endeavoring to sow dissensions" so that it shall not be used as a basis of
" constructive treason " only. It asks that in the trial of members the accused
shall have the right of challenge as to the committee, and an option to be tried
before the society without the consent of the preacher in charge, if this shall be
the choice of the accused. It asks finally either for the abolition of the presiding
eldership or their election by the Annual Conference. The temper of it is unex-
ceptionable, as any one may see who shall be at the pains to examine the paper.

52 HISTOBY OF METHODIST REFORM

no disposition to interfere with the General Superintendency,
except in curtailing its absolute power in the appointment of the
Elders.

Among those who were active in the Reform movement were
Thomas Kelso and Thomas E. Bond, the former a leading and
wealthy layman and the latter a local preacher and practising
physician. A copy of a printed Memorial to the General Con-
ference signed by the former as Chairman and the latter as Sec-
retary is now before the writer. Its caption is : " At a numerous
meeting of the male members of the Methodist Episcopal Church
in the city of Baltimore held by adjournment from time to time
in the Conference Boom, Light Street, the following Memorial
to the General Conference was after mature deliberation agreed
upon." It shows the trained pen of Dr. Bond. It petitions for
a lay-delegation in the General Conference and a restoration of
the licensing power to the Quarterly instead of the District Con-
ference as an abridgment of lay-privileges. It waives all natural
or abstract right to such participation and puts their appeal on
the ground of expediency. It touches other points in the Metho-
dist economy, — the support of the preachers and the education
of the children. Having been printed, it was freely circulated,
the manuscript copy having been sent with the signatures to the
General Conference. Indeed, it may be truthfully alleged that
Methodism, at least in Baltimore, was saturated with Reform;
quite a number of the Conference ministers, Eyland, Shinn,
Griffith, Waugh, Emory, Morgan, Hanson, Davis, Guest,1 and
others, while the local preachers, under the lead of Jennings,
McCaine, Bond, Williams, D. E. Reese, Kesley, Valiant, John
S. Reese, Cox, John C. French, McCormick, and Boyd were with
few exceptions in the same category. In fine, so general was it,
that when a few years later the expulsions took place, it was with
difficulty that a committee of local preachers could be named to
conduct the trials of their peers. The laity was represented " by

1 Mutual Rights for August, 1824, p. 57.

2 " Brief Considerations of the Present System of Methodist Episcopal Govern-
ment, with a few Suggestions toward its Improvement," respectfully inscribed to
the Travelling Ministers and the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, by
A Layman. 1824. 8vo. 40 pp.

This masterful pamphlet seems to have been issued just before the General
Conference of 1824, and it is the sincere regret of the writer that he has found it
impossible to identify the author. It bears not a few marks of the gifted pen of
Gideon Davis. It is in proof that while the controversy at this stage had not
fully ripened, that there were laymen who fully comprehended the whole situa-
tion. This pamphlet is an anticipation logically of most of Dr. Bond's Appeal,

BALTIMORE A HOT-BED OF REFORM 53

the intellect, piety, social position, and business thrift of the
three great churches, Light Street, Eutaw, and Fell's Point, as
will be seen, when the names of the expelled are given in future
proceedings. There were some notable exceptions, as will also
be seen, but no question can be made that the Keformers consti-
tuted the cream of the Church.

Despite the efforts of power and patronage, exerted actively
through the presiding elders, — and who may doubt as human
nature goes that the most was made of it, the Reform influence
in the General Conference nearly divided the delegations; for
while there was not one south of the Susquehanna River, those
from the North and East were largely in sympathy with it, at
least on the elective eldership question. A test was made when,
on May 5, a motion was offered to appoint a committee to whom
the memorials and petitions on Reform should be referred ; it was
lost by a vote of fifty-three affirmative and sixty negative, the
Reformers fearing the gag of a Committee, and wishing open dis-
cussion and a decision upon its merits. The next day, however,
after some amendments, one including the reading of the papers
before reference, it was carried, and a committee of twelve, named
by the presiding Bishop, was accordingly appointed, and the fair-
ness of the executive may be inferred from the fact that every
one of them was a pronounced foe of lay-representation and the
local preachers' claims, the chairman, Nathan Bangs, favoring
only the Elective Eldership.1 The proof that the suspicions of
the Reformers were well founded is in the fact that their Report

specially on National and Church Rights as identical in origin of the Scriptural
Principles of Church Government, and the assumption that the success of Ameri-
can Methodism was due to the hierarchic system as much, if not more, than to its
peculiar doctrines and spiritual fervor. One citation on this point must suffice :
" Nothing is more common than to hear opponents of Reform appealing to our
success for justification of the present polity. And suppose it were possible to
inquire of every member of the Church whether they joined it from a love of the
government, what would be the answer? Let those who desire an answer preach
nothing but our form of government, and see how many they will get to love it,
and to become Methodists from a love of the government. The truth is our suc-
cess has been independent of, and even in opposition to, the form of government;
the polity of the Church has driven thousands from the Church, and kept thou-
sands out of the Church. The injustice of our system has become matter of gen-
eral recognition, general reproach, and general disgust. Why, then, is a system
kept up which is prejudicial to the gospel, which does our Church so much harm,
and gives it so much scandal? " The reader will remember that just such views
were affirmed by the writer in the first volume, as a part of the necessary philos-
ophy of the situation, and here confirmed by an intelligent layman of the Church
living so near the times.

1 For full committee see Mutual Rights, August, 1824, p. 13.

54 HISTOBY OF METHODIST BEFORM

was not presented until the last day of the Conference session,
and then it was in the form of a " Circular " addressed to the
general Church and signed by Bishops M'Kendree, George, and
Roberts. Dr. John French, a visitor, says: "As to the question
of a lay-delegation, it was never before the Conference. It
perished in the committee to which petitions for reform were
referred. The reformers made no attempt to call it up. They
knew at the opening of the Conference that the majority was
against them." "Baltimore" James Smith, who was in the
Philadelphia delegation, says of the Circular, " It was not passed
by the General Conference until the last day of its session, when
most of the representatives of the New York, Genesee, New
England, and a number of those from Philadelphia had left Bal-
timore and were on their way home. It was carried through the
house with little or no opposition, as it was done on the afternoon
of the day on which the 'Conciliatory Resolutions ' were virtually
suspended for four years longer ; with all the attendant advantages
taken of the minority on account of the absence of so many of
their coadjutors in the same common cause."1 And yet the
bishops in this " Circular of the General Conference " say, " To
these memorials, as well as others praying the continuance of our
government in its present form, we have given attentive hearing
in full conference; and after much reflection we reply." It may
be found in full in Bangs's " History " and in the August number,
1824, of the Mutual Rights. Bangs says that it was passed " after
an able and full discussion." Let this be offset by James Smith
(Baltimore), a member, and Dr. John French, a spectator, as
already cited. The action of the Conference was: "Resolved,
1st, that it is inexpedient to recommend a lay-delegation. 2d,
Resolved that the following circular be sent in reply to the peti-
tioners, memorialists, etc." It may be characterized as plausible,
patronizing, and paternal; the gist of it may be thus summed up.
Referring to the scanty support of the ministry alluded to by the
petitioners, it says : " Whatever that cause may be, we at least
have no information that the people refuse to contribute, because
they are not represented. Indeed, it would grieve us to know
this ; for even though they should refuse to acknowledge us as
their representatives in the General Conference, they cannot do
less for the love of Christ than they would oblige themselves to
do out of love for authority."

1 " Honestus's " (James Smith) Review of Circular in Mutual Rights for
August and September, 1824.

REPLY TO REFORMERS' PETITIONS 55

In this is presented the germ of what afterward became the
infamous "purse-string" argument of the anti-reformers, and
unwittingly at the same time its effective answer. In plain prose
it is: the people evidently approve our government, otherwise
they would not support us in a living, but this they dare not do,
as it is forbidden by the love of Christ." Again: "We rejoice
to know that the proposed change is not contemplated as a
remedy for evils which now exist, . . but that it is offered,
either in the anticipation of the possible existence of such evils,
or else on a supposition of abstract rights, which in the opinion
of some should form the basis of our government. . . . The
rights and privileges of our brethren, as members of the Metho-
dist Episcopal Church, we hold most sacred. We are unconscious
of having infringed them in any instance; nor would we do so."
Here is a curious jumble of terms. How can there be " rights
and privileges" which are not basically abstract, and yet the
petitioners are scouted for suggesting that they have " abstract
rights ! " After toying with them about the " general rules and
articles of religion" as a "constitution," which guarantees your
"rights and privileges," the master stroke is delivered in these
words, which furnished another imperishable epigram for Reform
literature: "But if by 'rights and privileges ' it is intended to sig-
nify something foreign from the institutions of the Church, as we
received them from our fathers, pardon us if we know no such rights,
if we do not comprehend such privileges. With our brethren every-
where, we rejoice that the institutions of our happy country are
admirably calculated to secure the best ends of civil government.
With their rights, as citizens of these United States, the Church
disclaims all interference; but that it should be inferred from
these what are your rights as Methodists seems to us no less sur-
prising than if your Methodism should be made the criterion of
your rights as citizens." The italics are supplied to emphasize
the epigram. The closing antithetical period of this paragraph
formed the foundation of all after-arguments of the anti-reformers,
viz. : the nature of government, civil and ecclesiastical, is utterly
diverse, so that no likeness is demanded, and the want of parallel
is of divine intention. The damaging sequence does not seem to
have been observed by these zealous hierarchs: ergo, that the
" civil institutions of the United States " have no countenance in
the New Testament principles of Christian manhood taught by
Christ and the apostles. The Circular concludes with four
sophistical reasons for not granting the representation prayed.

56 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

"Honestus," already identified in the Mutual Rights, riddles
the specious logic, and to his review those are referred who are
interested enough to read it. The Circular was spread broadcast
throughout the connection, the anti-reformers giving it wings
because they esteemed it unanswerable, and the Keformers as
well, because they found in it the strongest ground for continued
maintenance of their principles and aims.

Agreeably with the nature of things, like consorting with like,
on the morning of the day the Circular was passed, the "Sus-
pended Resolutions " were acted upon also. On this question the
Conference was so nearly divided that the friends of an unlim-
ited Episcopacy approached it cautiously. On the 20th of May,
Cartwright offered a motion that the Resolutions be incorporated
in the organic law when the dissenting Conferences should concur.
Tigert admits that strategy of a high order was employed, and
that there was a private understanding that Young of Ohio should
bring in a repealing resolution the next day, " the result proving
satisfactory to those who had introduced it," i.e. the Cartwright
motion. "The constitutionalists were gaining confidence, and
were rather forcing the fight." On the 22d of May Young's
motion was introduced, after a preamble, "that the resolutions
are not of authority, and shall not be carried into effect," and on
the 24th it came up on a motion to lay it on the table, which was
defeated. Then the vote was taken by ballot, with the result
sixty-three in favor and sixty-one against, so the M'Kendree-
Soule party triumphed by the narrow majority of two votes. A
scene of unseemly excitement followed. Tigert says : " So high
did the tide of party feeling run, that twice, while the resolution
was pending, Bishop Roberts in the chair, the quorum was broken,
and only under the remonstrances of the chairman and the vener-
able Garrettson was it restored and the measure finally passed." 1

There must have been blatant exhibitions by the political
tricksters of a foregone purpose to maintain the Episcopacy, to
drive from the Conference room a number sufficient twice to
break the quorum and put the body on the ragged edge of a dis-
organized adjournment. As it was not, a few of the Reformers
after the 26th of May, three days before adjournment, left for
their homes. The Episcopal party became alarmed at the tokens
of indignation, and, taking counsel of their fears, on motion of
Paine and Capers, both friends of the measure as passed, it was
resolved — and that without a reconsideration of the action as

i " History," p. 383.

" SUSPENDED RESOLUTIONS FURTHER SUSPENDED 57

carried — "that the suspended resolutions, making the presiding
elder elective, etc., are considered as unfinished business, and
are neither to be inserted in the revised form of the Discipline,
nor to be carried into operation, before the next General Con-
ference." So they hung upon the minutes as "unfinished busi-
ness." It was a mere "sop to Cerberus." Now came on the final
struggle. It was determined to reenforce the Episcopacy by the
election of two bishops. The lines were again closely drawn.
Joshua Soule and William Beauchamp were the candidates of the
constitutionalists, and sectional as well, while Elijah Hedding
and John Emory were their opponents, and also sectional. The
election took place May 26. On counting the ballots — and all
the authorities agree, taking their data from the minutes, Bangs,
M'Tyeire, and Tigert — "Soule had 64 votes, Beauchamp 62,
Hedding 61, and Emory 59; but 128 votes being cast, there was
no election. On the second ballot Soule had 65, and was elected,
being the only one receiving a majority. But before the third
ballot was taken, Mr. Emory arose and withdrew his name. This
is commonly regarded as the modest act of the youngest man
whose name was before the Conference. Undoubtedly it was
such an act, and Mr. Emory could well afford to wait. But it
was more than this. The fathers were not quite so innocent in
such matters as is usually supposed. There was no possibility
of the election of more than one of the candidates of the anti-
constitutionalists, and the younger man withdrew in favor of the
senior and leading name. Moreover, but one name was to go on
the ballots this third time, since Mr. Soule had been elected,
and if Messrs. Hedding and Emory divided the votes of their
party it was almost certain to elect Mr. Beauchamp. Conse-
quently Mr. Emory withdrew, and on the third ballot Mr. Hed-
ding received 66 votes to Mr. Beauchamp's 60, and was elected.
There was an element of danger in the fact that each Bishop had
been chosen by a sectional and party vote ; but it was well for
the unity of the Church, divided on a constitutional issue, but
by a sectional line, that each party secured a Bishop. No fracture
took place, but if a severe strain should come, the plane of
cleavage was painfully evident." 1 It did come in 1844, and the
Episcopacy as interpreted by the Asbury-M'Kendree-Soule sec-
tion was solely responsible for the untoward act, precipitated by
a dominating majority bent on its purpose without regard to con-
sequences.

1 Tigert's " History," pp. 384, 385.

58 HISTOBT OF METHODIST BEFOBM

One serious fact is unnoticed by any of the authorities. By
careful count of the members from the official Minutes there were
but 126 elected to the General Conference of 1824, and it appears
from the ballots that every one was present, quite a phenomenal
fact in those days of difficult and distant travel, and yet on two
of the three ballots for bishops there were 128 votes cast. Did
two of the three bishops then vote? It must have been so, or a
worse thing occurred — false ballots were cast. Charity would
assume the former to be the fact, but at what cost of disparage-
ment of the Episcopacy? Since 1808 they were not regarded as
voting members of the body, and are not to this day. It is an
historical conundrum worthy of record, but demanding no solu-
tion from the writer. Strange things were done, however, that
mar the conception of a delicate sense of honor and truth. It
seems to adhere to the hierarchal system, made a Jesuitical
canon in its Bomish form, that the "end sanctifies the means."

Another matter was disposed of at this Conference. It was
contended that the body had the right to divide the Church into
Episcopal districts so as to obviate the travel of the bishops over
the entire territory; but it was decided adversely, with a recom-
mendation that the bishops should hold annual meetings and
parcel out the Conferences for visitation, but in such a way that
each should make the round of the whole number within the
quadrennium. By an accident of the situation it strangely in-
tensified the sectional animus of the Episcopacy; for the Con-
ference having authorized the bishops to appoint a fraternal
delegate to the British Conference, in compliment to Messrs.
Beece and Hannah, they met in 1826, George and Hedding
having travelled in the North and Boberts and Soule in the
South, while M'Kendree was incapacitated largely by ill health.
Bishops George and Hedding were holding the Philadelphia Con-
ference, April 13-18, and Bishops M'Kendree and Soule came
from the South to have the bishops' meeting, Boberts being
absent. William Capers was nominated by M'Kendree and Soule,
but George and Hedding objected because he was connected with
slavery, and named instead Wilbur Fisk or Ezekiel Cooper; and
so sharp became the contention over it that no one was named,
and the matter went over to the ensuing General Conference.
Tigert publishes the memoranda of the meeting in full, but they
were kept secret for nearly seventy years. But that the truth of
history demands that the whole truth should be told, as well as
nothing but the truth, it would have been to the credit of all

SECTIONAL BISHOPS: NOBTH AND SOUTH 59

concerned if they had been consigned to the limbo of nihility
forever. Some inklings of the trouble got out, and McCaine
gives hints of it. The memoranda were found among the
papers of M'Kendree, but were not published by his biographer,
Bishop Paine, but are given by Tigert in his "History," the lat-
ter having a special motive ; it made a link in his argumentative
chain.

It is interesting as a matter of history that the sectional feeling
on slavery was so pronounced at this early day that "Bishop
Hedding from 1824 to 1844 made but a single tour of the Southern
Conferences, and that in 1831, seven years after he became
Bishop; in the same year Bishop Soule made his first episcopal
visitation in the North! The Bishops were localized."1 Was it
because Ezekiel Cooper foresaw coming events that he so strenu-
ously advocated a diocesan bishopric? If adopted, it would have
superseded the necessity for presiding elders, and the saving of
an immense sum annually. And as there would have been no
friction on account of the interchangeable visitations of these
sectional officers, it is among possibilities that the division of the
Church might have been prevented, as it was in the Protestant
Episcopal Church, the only Protestant denomination that was
saved from disruption by the slavery question, having continental
territory. All the virtue of a " General Superintendency " could
have been secured by an annual or quadrennial meeting of these
bishops, and another immense expense saved as entailed by the
system which demands that every Bishop must in the quadren-
nium travel all around the world that the fiction may be kept up.
But Wesley did it and Asbury did it, and, like true Bourbons,
who forget nothing and learn nothing, and regardless of the
change of circumstances, this episcopal wheel must be kept re-
volving. How much longer it will be tolerated by a patient and
disfranchised membership remains to be seen. Only one thing
would be marred by such a change: the hierarchal ideal of
wheels within wheels; and it is for this very reason that the
" General Superintendency " has so many ardent admirers among
the officials of the Church.

The new bishops were ordained May 27, after a sermon by
Bishop George. Soule reached the pinnacle of a Methodist
preacher's ambition under his own interpretation of the prac-
tically unlimited powers of the Episcopacy. He was a colossus
in the Church, having in him the timber of which popes are

i Tigert's " Constitutional History," p. 392.

60 niSTOEY OF METHODIST BEFOBM

made, and after 1844, though born in Maine, 1781, he cast in his
lot with the South in logical consistency with his " Constitu-
tional" ideas, his conscience following his reasoning. Of splen-
did physique, gifted and laborious, he survived until March 6,
1867. Hedding was born in New York in 1780. He was highly
respected for purity of character, amiability, and talents, the
latter not of a very high order, large and venerable in presence.
He died April 9, 1852. The Conference elected John Emory
Assistant Book Agent at New York, with Nathan Bangs as Agent.
What did this election and that to the Secretariat of the Con-
ference mean after his defeat as a delegate by the Baltimore
Conference for his Reform sentiments? It did not mean cer-
tainly an indorsement of them, but it did mean, first, abilities
that challenged recognition, and, second, his rescue from the
number of "inflammatory," "slanderous," and "violent" writers
on Eeform. It will be seen that the method was successful.

Just before the Conference adjourned, May 29, to meet in
Pittsburgh, Pa., May 1, 1828, Bishop M'Kendree, felicitating
himself on the accomplishment of all his views as a " Constitu-
tional " exponent, felt it incumbent on him to make an Address
to the body, the objective of which was to exculpate himself from
his unauthorized reference of the " Suspended Resolutions " to
the Annual Conferences. Paine, in his "Life of M'Kendree,"
tells that he, with John Summerfield, who was a visitor at the
Conference and employed in missionary labor within the Balti-
more Conference, took down the Address in shorthand, and it
can be found in the "Life of M'Kendree." The gist of it is in
these sentences : " I have no hesitation in saying that the act was
not within the limits of our restricted powers ; but I was induced
to do it from a precedent which had been once set by that vener-
able man, Bishop Asbury." He refers to the organization of the
Genesee Conference, but this was prior to 1808, when, according
to these doctrinaires, the Church had no "Constitution," and
therefore Asbury was a law unto himself as no other man could
dare to be. M'Kendree, however, admits that he did an extra-
constitutional thing to accomplish a foregone purpose. Caesar
did it, and Pompey will be no less than Caesar; that is all of it.
These men were possessed with one idea: the doctrines of the
Gospel and means of grace instituted by Wesley had brought
success under a given system of government, ergo, it must needs
be perfect. Paine, who was present, says: "The moment he
rose noise and motion ceased in the crowded house," and when

REFORMER SPECTATORS AT GENERAL CONFERENCE 61

he closed, "his cheeks moistened with tears, bade them as he
supposed a long farewell. The whole audience continued awhile
in profound silence, interrupted only by partially suppressed
emotions. He concluded his address with the apostolic bene-
diction, and retired." Soon after the Conference adjourned.

Meanwhile the Reformers were not idle. The 126 with the
bishops were quartered upon the best-to-do laymen, many of
whom were pronounced for Representation. The locality were
nearly to a man in favor of representation for themselves and for
the laity, a proceeding that seemed so equitable, not to name
other considerations, that general confidence prevailed that some-
thing would be conceded by the General Conference at least of
an initiatory nature. There were a large number of visitors of
Reform tendencies, not a few from quite a distance in those days.
Snethen and Stockton were there observing the course of events,
and always self-poised. Jennings, also large-hearted and large-
minded, but of ardent temperament, swayed a commanding influ-
ence as popular physician, educator, and preacher, giving his
spare moments to the " Life of Asbury " under the auspices of
the Baltimore Conference. Shinn was there with all his master-
ful faculties under calm control, and not yet fully committed to
Reform. McCaine was the master of a large and flourishing day-
school for boys, an Agamemnon with his armor on, who had
shared the secret confidence of Asbury and the giants of an earlier
day, and who was much respected and not a little feared by the
" Bishop men " so called, for what he knew of the inwardness of
scheming preachers. He stood six feet two inches in his stock-
ings, symmetrically built, a majestic head, and strongly cut
features,1 with physical and moral courage that blanched at
nothing, hot and impulsive, and who was never known to give
flattering titles to- any man. Rev. Dr. John French of Virginia
was there, strong in all the elements of a great and good Metho-
dist. Rev. Francis Waters, the courtly Christian gentleman, the
classical scholar, the devout Methodist, the finished preacher, and
the inflexible Reformer, was also there from his Eastern Shore
home. Griffith, James M. Hanson, Ryland, John Davis, Morgan,

1 The only " counterfeit presentment " of him extant is in the form of a plaster
bust and head in the possession of the Baltimore Book Concern, and stationed
over the glass book-case containing the files of the official paper. It is a study
for a physiognomist, and pronounced a good likeness by the venerable McCor-
mick, and others, who knew him. It was cast about 1835, and at the same time
one of Dr. Jennings, and one of the youthful and lamented Davies. One of Dr.
Jennings is still preserved in the family of Dr. Thomas Owings.

62 HISTOBY OF METHODIST REFORM

Guest, and many others were there, alive to the issues. Vying
with Jennings in all but preaching popularity was Dr. Thomas E.
Bond. He was a son of Thomas Bond of Harford County, Md.,
who was one of Strawbridge's converts from the Friends, and a
brother of John Wesley Bond, the travelling companion of Asbury
in his closing years. Well educated, a skilful physician, a loyal
Methodist, filling official positions from very early life, yet with
a mind open to the possible improvements of its economy. He
has been found an active advocate of a lay-delegation on the
ground of expediency. Eminently social, a fluent talker, and a
ready debater, he was a recognized leader in the Church. He
had one quality that moulded his whole career. His admirers
said he was sagacious in all the phases of the word as defined by
lexicographers. His critics said he was tricky in its broad defini-
tion ; and as this is a serious allegation, it will be supported by
the facts of his devious course and the evidence of himself and
others. It was this element of his character that made him a
suspect, though he had the free entr4e of the Beformer meetings
and their personal confidence. He will often appear in these
pages. Gideon Davis of Georgetown, D. C, came up to Balti-
more for consultation with his Beform brethren, as his duties as
clerk in the United States Treasury permitted. Cultured, forci-
ble, magnetic, and true, no man of his abilities has received less
notice, yet no man of the laity did more for Beform as it cul-
minated in the Methodist Brotestant Church. Other laymen of
note in the Baltimore churches, and in the community as citizens,
were Chappell, Sr., referred to in the first volume, John J. Harrod,
Thomas Mummy, Wesley Starr, Thomas Kelso, John Kennard,
W K. Boyle, E. Strahen, Lambert Thomas, John Coates, Sr.,
Hawkins, Batterson, Thomas and Samuel Jarrett, Gephart, Sr.,
Howard, Forman, Northman, Fountain, and others. These Be-
formers were not idle while measures for their overwhelming
discomfiture were maturing by the partisan committee of twelve
in the General Conference.

Beferred to them on the 6th of May, they made no report upon
the memorials, etc., in their custody for nearly three weeks.
Whisperings of their adverse unanimous verdict got out, and the
Beformers prepared for action. Accordingly a meeting was con-
vened in the schoolroom of McCaine, and the threatening situa-
tion canvassed, May 21, 1824. It was numerously attended;
Hon. F. B. Hopper and J. W. Bordley of Queen Anne, Md., and
W. Smith of New York were also present, as well as no less than

DEFEATED REFORMERS OF 1824 REORGANIZE 63

seventeen members of the General Conference.1 Their names are
unknown, McCaine stating in extenuation, in his first essay in
the opening number of the Mutual Bights, p. 17: "Did they
only know the names of these champions of Mutual Rights, they
would feel and confess, as I am willing to do, the high obligation
they are under to men of such noble and liberal minds. The only
alloy I feel on the occasion is, that I am not at liberty to record
their names." Wherefore? For them individually everything
was staked on concealment. The marvel is that such a number
could be summoned at such a meeting out of a General Conference
elected and organized to defeat and crush the Reform movement.
The meeting resolved three things : " To institute a periodical pub-
lication, entitled The Mutual Mights of the Ministers and Members
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, to be conducted by a committee
of ministers and laymen; to raise societies in all parts of the
United States, whose duty it shall be to disseminate the princi-
ples of a well-balanced government, and to correspond with each
other; to appoint a committee of their own body to draft a cir-
cular addressed to the ministers and members of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, and to forward the same forthwith to all parts
of the United States." The committee was Jennings, French,
Smith, Davis, Bordley, and Hopper. Samuel K. Jennings, Chair-
man of the meeting, and Francis Waters, Secretary. The Circular
was at once prepared and addressed, and anticipated that of the
General Conference a week or two, but as the preachers every-
where under the elders transmitted the letter, it reached a hun-
dred of the membership where that of the Reformers reached one,
as it was put under ban, and suppressed as far as possible. The
full text of the Circular as well as of the meeting may be found
pages 3, 4, 5, of the Mutual Mights, the Circular of the Con-
ference following it on pages 5, 6, 7. Those who wish to examine
the Christian temper and perfect moderation of the Reformers'
Circular are referred to it. The gist of it is their disappointed
expectations, calling upon Reformers "not to suffer these un-
pleasant circumstances to alienate their affections from the
Church, nor to induce them to leave her communion," but "to
cleave to her to the last extremity." The strong minority for
Reform in the Conference of 1824 is made the ground that at the
next "we may expect to realize our hopes." Cooperation is
invited from all who favor governmental changes. Signed by
Jennings, Chairman of Committee, and French, Secretary.
1 Bassett's " History," p. 41.

CHAPTER IV

The denial of the General Conference of lay rights ; Snethen's views ; expecta-
tions and disappointments as to the issue — The question of Lay-Representation
traversed fully ; arguments on both sides considered ; Dr. Neely's chain broken
— Snethen states it for his opponents, etc. — The Repository discontinued ;
reasons for it; dissatisfaction; the Mutual Rights, August, 1824 — The con-
troversy joined by both parties ; the Mutual Rights admitted papers on both
sides ; the Methodist Magazine declined — Union Societies ; their object — Pre-
siding Elder Devany and Dr. Armistead, with Drs. Jennings and French in re-
ply ; Shinn on the situation — Bitter opposition to the Mutual Rights ; amusing
illustration of it — Spread of the Union Societies in every direction — Reform
as a Principle and an Idea ; the American Revolution based on a principle and
an idea solely — Snethen and Shinn keep the Reformers from seceding prema-
turely — Contributors to the several volumes of the Mutual Rights ; Bascom as
a Reformer and contributor — First Expulsions in Tennessee — The Still well
Reformers.

"But if by 'rights and privileges' it is intended to signify
something foreign from the institutions of the Church as we
received them from our fathers, pardon us if we know no such
rights, if we do not comprehend such privileges." The epigram
was upon every tongue, startling as a revelation to the Reformers
for its calm effrontery and unlimited arrogation; while to anti-
reformers it was chewed as a juicy portion — a death draught to
innovations and innovators. In 1822 Snethen had written, "It
cannot be long, I am fully persuaded, before the travelling
preachers must give up their supremacy." And in 1823 he de-
clared: "The assumption of right on the part of the travelling
preachers must, I hold, be formally and publicly disavowed by
them. Is it not evident, that if the friends and patrons of the
legislative rights of the church are resolved to maintain them
(and how can they do otherwise), and the travelling preachers
refuse to surrender them, there must be a division? Let no one
say, if so, the sooner the better; but rather let the Church give
the travelling preachers a reasonable time and a fair opportunity
to make a surrender with as much willingness as possible." Once
more : " When I lose all hope that the travelling preachers will
in due time refuse legislation for the Church, I shall lose my

64

SNETHEN'S FORLORN HOPE 65

affection for them also. At present I am disposed to consider
their pertinacity as the effects of ignorance or want of reflection
or error in judgment, either of which it will require time and
judicious management to overcome. But I place the greatest
reliance upon time." He had discouraged the idea of a personal
representation to the ensuing General Conference, and the advice
was taken, lest it should be averred, " The enemy is at the gates "
and "the standard of revolt is raised." "My plan therefore is
that we continue to encourage our friends to write, and by their
writing to disseminate principles, and leave the General Confer-
ence as free from any cause of fear or restraint as may be, and
thus give them a fair opportunity to make a voluntary surrender
of a power, the right of which they ought to disclaim." This
was nine months before the Conference met. What must have
been his perturbation and disappointment when by this one fell
swoop all rights were absolutely denied to any participation in
the government. Still he did not despair, though it touched the
very heart of the issue made by the lay-representationists, — "the
right of suffrage is the original and fundamental principle which
has extended through two volumes of the Repository." This was
written in the third volume, and the purpose was steadily kept
in view down to 1828, except by the limited number of whom
Kelso and Bond were the exponents, who placed their demand on
the score of expediency. In 1822 he wrote, " Church representa-
tion is perfectly compatible with any fair construction of either
of the restrictions, or of episcopacy and general superintendency."
As late as 1835 he declared : " I go for no half -measures or ex-
pedients or accommodations. They will have all or none, their
determination follows from their religious belief in their divine
right to all. Who can meet them upon this ground with any
belief or right short .of religious and divine? Claim your divine
right, children. Let no man take your crown of educated
equality. Deem it no usurpation or sacrifice if the gospel of the
grace of God, as the law of God did David, should make you
wiser than even your teachers." Further: " But I rest quite easy
in the confidence that when the time come (and that it surely will
come) to give these essays an impartial reading, that the reader
will see that all the ambition I could have was, first, to aid and
assist the travelling preachers, to admit by a direct and imme-
diate process of their own legislation the check-giving principle
of lay-representation; and, second, if they not only refused, but
returned evil for good, and drive us from the church, they should

VOL. II p

C6 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

be compelled to make retribution to offended liberty and equality
■with their own hands."

It was kindred with another purpose which he held sacred, and
in which he was also followed by most of the Reformers, viz.,
never to secede ; and yet he realized with philosophical acumen
its gravity. " To reform and not divide is much more difficult
in Church than in State." He never lost sight of the secession
of O'Kelly and its deplorable results upon the whole connection;
it was to him a danger-beacon. And so he hopefully counselled
in August, 1823 : " Let us furnish history with at least one ex-
ample of a church achieving its rights from the hands of its
preachers, without the loss of confidence and affection, and with-
out division. Such a record will be scarcely less honorable to
the preachers than to ourselves. For though it must appear that
they held power to which they had no right, their readiness in
yielding it will prove that their hearts were not hardened by the
love of it." Alas! he did not see with the clear vision of the
astute John Emory the unyielding nature of intrenched power :
" Remember the tenacious grasp with which power is held when
once acquired. Its march is ever onward and its tremendous
tendency is to accumulation."

This is as good a connection as any other to traverse the ques-
tion of lay-exclusion from governmental participation, on its
logical and factual merits. It is an admitted canon in all fair
polemics that the argument of your adversary must not be stated
with less cogency than its strongest expression. It is accepted,
premising only, as axiomatic, that there is room for searching
investigation, and a presumption of fundamental wrong when the
votaries of an ecclesiastical or civil system are compelled always
to assume an apologetic attitude. It is true of all the hierarchies
of the world from Czar Nicholas to Pope Leo ; but no one thinks
of apologizing for the English or the American Constitution, or
the polity of the Methodist Protestant Church as constitutionally
embodied. In all the writer's searching he has found no such
statement of exclusive ministerial rights as that recently made
by Rev. Dr. T. B. Neely of the Methodist Episcopal Church : —

" The original governing power is vested in the ministry. In
the beginning it belonged to Wesley, and then it passed to the
Conference of ministers. The logical explanation of this is found
in the fact that in the historical evolution of Methodism the minis-
try was first to come into existence. Thus Mr. Wesley preached
Methodism before there was a Methodist laity. The society did

LAY EXCLUSION LOGICALLY CONSIDERED 67

not make him, but, on the contrary, he made the Methodist
society. He preached and gathered the people, and the people
came under his authority- Then he made the preachers, and the
preachers gathered the people and formed other societies. Logi-
cally and historically the preachers were first, and the laity after-
ward. Later the power Wesley possessed went to the Conference
called the Legal Hundred in England, while in America it passed
to the Conference of preachers, who organized the Church and
made the laws, while the people voluntarily accepted this Con-
ference government. As the supreme governing power was in
the Conference of ministers, the constitution-making power vested
in the same body, and when the body of ministers came to make
a constitution in 1808 it naturally reserved to itself the right and
power to pass upon and agree to any amendment before any change
could be made in the constitution which it had created. This
right, therefore, of a primary or final voice in amending the con-
stitution vests in the ministry by the logic of history and the
nature of constitutional authority." 1

It is not new, but as old as the first agitation of it more than
a hundred years ago: the preachers were instrumental in the
conversion of the laity, were before them, and therefore have a
right to govern them. Perhaps a kind of reductio ad absurdum,
as the dialecticians say, will be the best method of confutation
of this argument of so much plausible seeming. The apostles
and their successors in the primitive Church of Christ were first;
without them there could have been no Church ; the Church did
not make the apostles, the apostles made the Church, and there-
fore— what? Without an array of the New Testament data —
the facts of sacred history — let Snethen state the result of the
research for its example of church government, with the safe
assumption that no one will be rash enough seriously to challenge
it : " There is not an example in all the New Testament of apos-
tles, bishops, or any other description of church officers, trying
and expelling church members, without the aid or cooperation of
the church; nor of apostles, elders, or churches legislating or

1 New York Christian Advocate, 1894. It does not seem to have occurred to Dr.
Neely, or if it did, he wisely, for his purpose, ignores the facts that the local
preachers, Strawbridge, Embury, Captain Webb, and others, with Barbara Heck,
as representing the womanhood of the early societies, were before the preachers
who assembled in 1784, and not a few of them were the converts of these men, so
that without them and Barbara Heck there would have been no Methodist Society
in America, etc., so that the first link of his chain-argument is missing, and this
invalidates it — it is a genuine sophism.

68 JIISTOBY OF METHODIST REFORM

making laws for any church without its consent." He exhaus-
tively considers the subject in his essay on "A View of the
Primitive Church and its Government " and " The Feudal System."
The dictum is a safe one; the examples of the New Testament
ecclesiasticism are utterly subversive of the Methodist Episcopal
polity in both its genius and its development. Volumes have
been written to prove apologetically the converse — with what
avail let any impartial investigator decide. No one can honestly
enter upon the task and not find himself logically delivered to
the Roman hierarchy. If you search for a strong government,
there you can find it, and in like manner under its various modi-
fications down to the anomalous one of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, but for a Scriptural one you cannot find it. Apropos of
Dr. Neely's argument let a layman, through the same medium
and about the same time and on the germane issue of lay-repre-
sentation, answer: —

" The proposition for delay by this time has a familiar sound.
I remember that ten years ago at Philadelphia, when some propo-
sition was made looking to reform in this matter, Dr. Neely said
he was not prepared to consider the subject. He still thinks the
time for action has not come. Whenever it has been proposed
to make the lay-representation equal to the ministerial, the ready
objection has been that it would make the General Conference
too large. When it is proposed to begin at the other end, and
somewhat reduce the numbers, so as to make room for a fair rep-
resentation of the laity, the same parties are equally ready with
the advice to wait till a more convenient season. This persistent
repression is calculated to work injury to the Church. The fact
is, that the admission of laymen to the General Conference at all
has settled it that the preachers have no peculiar prerogative of
legislation. They are ordained to be 'faithful dispensers of the
word of God and of His holy sacraments,' but not as lawgivers.
It is too late in the history of the Methodist Episcopal Church
to claim that the ministry have any inherent and seclusive right
of legislation. Perhaps it would not be immodest to say (taking
an illustration from figures which I have at hand) that the fifty-
five thousand lay-members within the bounds of New York East
Conference can furnish as many men who could legislate intelli-
gently and wisely as can be selected from the somewhat less than
three hundred ministers of the same Conference. We must come
to the point of giving equal representation to both orders, and
the sooner and the more gracefully it is done, the better."

"■MUTUAL BIGHTS" VS. "WESLEYAN REPOSITORY" 69

Tor such reasoning as this, and as mildly put, laymen sixty
years ago "were ignominiously expelled the Church. Another
argument direct, Snethen himself furnished for the sake of it,
and more cogently than any of his opponents could state it: " The
duty and purity of the Church cannot continue without discipline,
and discipline cannot be maintained without exclusive power in
the travelling preachers to make and execute rules. Take away,
or qualify, or limit the power of the travelling preachers, and
there can be no government; take away government, and there
can be no religion. If it were not for this means, says a zealous
member, we should not be better than other people; and if it
were not, says another, we should lose all our religion ; but the
zealous itinerant don't lay so much stress upon these minor mat-
ters ; the inference from his argument is, that neither a Saviour,
nor grace, nor sacraments, nor good preaching, nor anything else
can save us from ruin, without itinerant power." That such a
chain of inconsequents should be entertained seriously by any
one is in proof how readily the human mind under prepossession
receives a fallacy. The collateral arguments apologetic of lay-
exclusion are more numerous, and if anything more sophistical,
and, as will be discovered, some of them in the desperation of
extremity positively unchristian. They will be noticed as they
develop.

Stockton had completed arrangements to continue the Reposi-
tory in Philadelphia, but the dominant Baltimore element pre-
ferred a reconstruction more directly under the control and
patronage of the inchoately organized Reformers. The Reposi-
tory had been published at a loss by its editor and proprietor,
and representative Methodism throughout the world can never
repay his self-sacrificing and heroic labors in its behalf. Its dis-
continuance caused dissatisfaction.1 This and the injection of
the local preachers' demands, Stockton affirms, materially dam-
aged the cause in Philadelphia. The action of the Baltimore
Reformers did not materialize until the ensuing August. Mean-
while the effect of the sweeping arrogation of the General Con-

1 W. S. Stockton, in a series of articles in the Western Recorder for February,
March, and April, 1850, gives a history of the Wesleyan Repository, and an iden-
tification of all the writers, but he gives no specific reason for its discontinuance
after April, 1824, though evidently chagrined by that action. Dr. S. K. Jen-
nings, in his " Exposition," page 50, assigns as the reason : " The Repository had
been so resisted by the friends of power that it had become necessary to exchange
it for the Mutual Rights. Experience had demonstrated the necessity of sustain-
ing the periodical by the organization of Union Societies."

TO HISTOBY OF METHODIST REFORM

ference was diverse. Not a few were intimidated by it, specially
among the Itinerants. It became evident that the Episcopal
party, with the spirit of Asbury himself, as now interpreted by
M'Kendree and Soule, had taken a stand from which there could
be, in their view of it, no retreat. Repression of Reform was in
the air; extirpation was held in reserve. Hamilton's dictum —
power over a man's substance is power over his will — so worked
that nearly all the comparatively large number of the travelling
preachers who were in sympathy with the claims of the laity sub-
sided or recanted. Others, however, like Asa Shinn, needed such
a stimulus to rouse their lion courage. The saintly but fearless
Truman Bishop and others could not brook the defiant and arro-
gant position of their ministerial brethren, and, after exhausting
all powers of reasoning and persuasion, espoused openly their
cause. In Cincinnati and Pittsburgh, as well as Baltimore and
other places, where the seeds of Reform had been securely planted,
parties were formed and social Methodism felt the shock of irrec-
oncilable difference of opinion. Dr. John French led the move-
ment in Virginia and Dr. Bellamy in North Carolina, and the
memorial of the Roanoke District conference and its Circular to
the general Church are among the most masterly, Christian, and
effective of the many addressed to the General Conference. The
full text may be found in Paris's "History." The crimination
and recrimination grew apace. From arguments to epithets the
way was short. Those who favored changes in the government
were stigmatized as "Backsliders; under the influence of base
motives; opposers of God; instigated by the devil; enemies of
Methodism," while their opponents denounced their Church neigh-
bors as "Bishops' men, traitors, cowards, etc." Not a few of the
recusants withdrew their support, discouraged by the strife that
was engendered, while the side issue of the local preachers did
more than anything else to shadow the great principle of lay-rep-
resentation with itinerants, and yet this issue was intrinsically
reasonable and earnestly pressed by the locality, — the origina-
tors of Methodism in America.

August, 1824, the first number of the Mutual Rights, etc.,
appeared. It took for its motto a sentiment of Bishop Burnet's :
" What moderation or charity we owe to men's persons, we owe
none at all to their errors, and to that frame which is built on
and supported by them." It was a forty -page octavo monthly,
printed for the committee by John T. Toy. Its contents were
Editorial Address, signed by the chairman, Samuel K. Jennings,

INITIAL NUMBER OF MUTUAL BIGHTS 71

which set forth the objects of the publication " to realize to the
Church a practical understanding of the title it assumes. This
can be done only through the medium of a free press." "Well-
written communications on any of the above subjects (Mutual
Eights, etc.) will be thankfully received, and the utmost impar-
tiality observed by the Committee." This was so largely availed
of by the enemies of Eeform that at the end of the first volume
the Committee had to admonish them, so great was the latitude
of severe personalities in which they indulged, that only argu-
ments could be admitted from them in future. It was in broad
contrast with the Methodist Magazine, under Bangs and Emory,
which admitted nothing but attacks upon the Eeformers. This
statement is indisputable. For proof examine the respective
volumes. The meeting of the Eeformers May 21, and their
Circular, as also that of the General Conference in full, followed
by the first of two articles by "Baltimore" James Smith, ia
review of the last Circular, dissecting it into shreds ; also an open-
ing article, "Eeview of Some of the Acts of the General Con-
ference," with a full roster of the members; an "Essay on the
Eights of the Laity to Church Eepresentation, " No. 1, by "Nehe-
miah " (Alexander McCaine) ; Constitution of the Union Society
of Baltimore; Address of the Presiding Elder of Norfolk, Va.,
Benjamin Devany, late member of the Conference, to the Church
in that District, republished from the Norfolk Herald, a secular
paper, and a reply to it by John French; "Geological Phe-
nomena," by Horace H. Hayden, geologist, a series of a masterly
nature running through several numbers; a miscellany of prose
and poetry. The high literary standard of the Repository was
fully kept up in the new publication. The Baltimore Union
Society was the first formed, and its Constitution sets forth as
its primary object, "to ascertain the number of persons in the
Methodist Church who are friendly to such alteration (the ex-
clusive right of the ministers to make 'rules and regulations '),
to raise societies in all parts of these United States, to correspond
with each other on such subjects as they may believe calculated
to improve our church polity." The Mutual Rights is placed by
the Society under an editorial committee, and provision made
that any other member of a Union Society in any place could vote
at the annual meeting his preference for said Committee. The
first elected were Jennings, Chairman, McCaine, Williams, Kes-
ley, Harrod, Thomas, Emmerson, and Bordley.
The Union Societies by first intention were designed as a test

72 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

of the second reason assigned by the General Conference for
refusing the petitions of the Reformers, — "Because it presup-
poses that either the authority of the General Conference to
'make rules and regulations ' for the Church, or the manner in
which this authority has been exercised, is displeasing to the
Church: the reverse of which we believe to be true." It was
clainled as a sufficient answer that " not one in one hundred of the
membership" were known to favor Reform. It was true that
they numbered at this time actively not over five thousand, per-
haps, for this was the probable number the Repository had
reached, or one in fifty of the membership, and even this number
is a marvel when the concerted effort of those in authority to
repress and destroy it is taken into consideration ; yet the Re-
formers were willing to abide by this challenge, if when all the
membership had been reached it could be shown that they were
in such a minority. But no one knew better than the bishops
and elders that wherever the true purpose of the Reformers
became known, it was approved as a rule, and that if a free press
was undisturbed in disseminating the light, it would soon spread
through the whole Church. The point is trenchantly covered in
the Preface to the first volume of the Mutual Bights : " For the
recovery of the mutual rights of the ministers and members of
the Church of Christ from the usurpation and tyranny which were
sought after and accomplished in the establishment of hierarchies,
it was necessary that the people should be enlightened. To be
patient in slavery men must be ignorant. To give security to
masters, ignorance must be perpetuated. These maxims are
equally true in Church or State. Every good citizen of these
United States will, therefore, be tributary to the information of
the people, and every good member of the great commonwealth
of Christianity will love the equal and mutual rights of her
children."

Devany, the Presiding Elder of the Norfolk District, under
date June 30, 1824, took advantage of the publication in the
Norfolk Herald, a secular paper, of the Reformers' first Circular,
probably inserted by some zealous Reformer or the editor himself
as a sensational item, to review the Circular, and gives in it the
keynote of the anti-reformers, which ran through all the subse-
quent literature of that side, except the " purse-string " argument.
As already found, Devany's review was promptly republished in
the Mutual Bights without his request, the editorial Committee
thus inviting free discussion under the conviction that the cause

ANTI-REFORMERS' ARGUMENT STATED 73

of Reform must be the gainer by it. That keynote may be here
given in fairness to them, as well as to anticipate the same de-
fensive reasoning, which was repeated and answered in almost
endless iteration for six years to come, and which if disposed of
now will save space in the end. He said to the Reformers and
the laymen of his district and elsewhere : " When, my brethren,
did we as a body of ministers deprive you of any of your ecclesi-
astical power? Do you not possess as much power now as you
ever did, and are you not governed in the same way that ever
you were? If so, how can it be said that we govern you without
your consent ? Ever since the organization of our Church, the
power has virtually rested with the laity. Do you not recom-
mend members of your own class to the proper authorities of the
Church to be licensed to preach, or to be admitted into the travel-
ling connection? Are you not apprised that if they are admitted
they will possess all the powers of an itinerant minister? If so,
you not only consent for them to rule you according to the exist-
ing rules and regulations of our Church, but you virtually chocse
them to be your rulers in the order of Providence." Again : " ITo
man or body of men have the right to disturb the peace and har-
mony of the Church of which he or they may be members. Ycu
have entered the Church with the discipline in your hands, and
now if you are dissatisfied with the rules, so far from wishing to
govern you without your consent, we would advise you to go to
some other, more congenial with your views, or set up for your-
selves, and form such rules and regulations as will best secure to
you all those rights and privileges for which you contend."

In this day it is difficult for either friend or foe of the ancient
Reform question to characterize such specious utterances, the
former for lack of patience and the latter for very shame. And
yet they did, both ministers and laymen, labor with the crudi-
ties and sophistries and solecisms, meeting them under all their
kaleidoscopic changes, pouring the search-light of common sense
and matter of fact upon them, until a modern historian of these
events is fatigued with the heavy inanities called arguments.
Dr. French, in his reply, takes the short method with Devany, —
a method of all others the most distasteful to the authorities,
viz., fair, full, and open discussion of the issues. French said:
" If there be such clearness of propriety (as you seem to suppose
there is) in the present system, if the government of the church
is as abundantly supported by reason and revelation as you would
have us believe, why all this proscribing of investigation? Why

74 HISTORY OF METHODIST BEFOBM

all this systematic and official persecution? Are you afraid the
people have not common sense enough to understand plain argu-
ments? If your cause is so good, and its goodness so easy to
make appear as you seem to insinuate, why not come out and let
us hear your reasons? We not only promise to hear them, but
we have promised to print and circulate them for you. We think
this course would disturb the repose of the Church much less, and
is much less calculated to stir up angry feelings, than the one
which you have chosen — but in a bad cause anything is preferred
to reason." As to leaving the Church with the obloquy of a
secession, no congenial ecclesiasticism extant to which they could
go, and the obstacles of a new organization gigantic and almost
insurmountable, well has the sweet-tempered Snethen met the
hard-hearted suggestion: "Are not those who know their rights
under the necessity of continuing to know them? Can any length
of time in which men forbear to exercise their rights give to
others the title to exercise them in their stead without their con-
sent? Bather from the nature of the case does not every hour
and every day they submit their rights to others diminish the
pretensions of usurped authority ? Though men who know noth-
ing may very sincerely fear nothing, yet this cannot be the case
with those who apprehend danger. . . . For an official man to
request preachers or members to withdraw, is an offence which
can only be exceeded by expelling them unjustly. What right
has a man to browbeat another out of his fellowship because he
is dissatisfied with an existing rule which is made alterable by
its own enactment? " This he wrote in 1822.

The Circular of Devany was answered by Dr. Jennings in three
letters through the Norfolk papers, and afterwards republished
in the Mutual Rights. Citation is unnecessary, for the only
points made have already been covered. It brought to the front,
however, as a champion of the old order of things, Dr. Eobert A.
Armistead of Virginia. He took advantage of the offer of a " free
press " by the Reformers, and was allowed every privilege. He
was a stronger writer than Devany, but instead of confining him-
self to the issues raised by him, he entered upon the merits of
the historical question at large. Still he was allowed all the
space he asked, the editorial Committee prefacing his first paper
with the just remark, " The course pursued by the writer to secure
an admission into our pages makes it improper for us to reject
his piece." He was answered by Jennings.

Dr. Waters graced the pages of the periodical with several

CONTBOVEJRSY WAXES WARMEB 75

sermons of classical finish and force. " One of the Laity " from
Philadelphia, probably J. F. Watson, was also permitted to defend
the old system. McCaine continued his masterful strictures free
from acrimony, though Dr. Armistead soon began to impugn the
motives of the Reformers, a specimen of which is as follows,
" that from motives of personal aggrandizement or sensuality, these
men are unduly intermeddling with the affairs of the Church."
In February, 1825, Snethen began a series of six papers on Church
Property, showing conclusively that in a contest of power with
principle the former has its empire in exclusive control of the
property. They added fuel to the controversial flame, as the fact
was vehemently denied by the opposition. Eev. James R. Wil-
liams entered the lists as a Reformer and showed his ability to
handle the discussion with good temper and perspicuity. His
pseudonym was "Amicus." Dr. Armistead continued to write
and is reviewed by McCaine and others. He assumed the role
of a prophet, and in this must be quoted: "They" (the terms
"delegate" and "constituents") "never will be known, nor will
they be incorporated in our vocabulary while Methodism con-
tinues." It was entirely consistent; the right was denied and
the expediency scouted.

About fifteen years later, when Dr. E. Yeates Reese, then editor
of the Methodist Protestant, ventured upon a counter prediction :
" Lay-delegation is a certain futurity in the Methodist Episcopal
Church," the whole family of Advocates, North and South, met
it with derisive incredulity and jocular denial. And it did take
more than thirty years longer before the leaven of the " Radical-
ism " of 1827-30 so worked and persisted that their General Con-
ference of 1872 took favorable action on the subject. It seemed
as though this long period was demanded to demonstrate the
dictum of Dr. Emory in 1824, " Remember the tenacious grasp
with which power is held when once acquired." In April, Asa
Shinn, under the incognito "Bartimeus," published a calm,
moderate, and convincing "Address to the Ministers and Mem-
bers of the Methodist Episcopal Church." In it his logical and
analytical mind sums up the case in these points : " It is true
they [the Reformers] ought to be put to silence, provided it is
done by the use of proper means. This may be attempted in four
ways. First, by striving to convince them that they are wrong,
and that they have no cause to object to any part of our ecclesias-
tical government. Second, to grant their request, so far as they
can support it by Scripture and reason. Third, to use threatening,

76 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

authority, and punishment. Fourth, to denounce them as heretics,
radicals, and schismatics ; to refuse them a hearing, impeach their
motives, and put as much uncandid reproach upon them as pos-
sible." He pleads for fair and dispassionate investigation and
discussion. It made a great impression, but as the Methodist
Magazine did not dare to observe the comity of debate by pub-
lishing it, as the Mutual Rights allowed space to its opponents, the
Address reached but a limited number. The character and reputa-
tion of Shinn was so pure, his style so dispassionate, his logic so
clear-cut and indisputable, no direct reply was ever attempted.

About this time " A Travelling Preacher " from Pennsylvania
wrote: "Let the Mutual Rights work its way for four years; let
the people read during the time, and make up their minds, each
man for himself. Let truth be calmly and forcibly set before
them; then let the General Conference come, and, stratagem
apart, we have nothing to fear. A good cause so circumstanced
must triumph." It was the whole case of the Reformers; they
asked for nothing more. " Cincinnatus," Rev. Cornelius Springer
of the travelling preachers West, resumes his contributions ; he
was the most incisive of the writers except McCaine. "Plain
Truth " from Virginia was a powerful writer for Reform in various
articles in this first volume, but it is not in my power to identify
him. Rev. Dr. Bassett informed the writer years ago, that in
1850, being in Baltimore at the General Conference, he waited
upon John J. Harrod, the venerable ex-publisher of the Mutual
Rights, in company with E. Yeates Reese, and preferred an earnest
request that he would go through the bound volumes and identify
the writers. He promised to do so, but it was never done, and
so to-day a number of the contributions are unverified in author-
ship. "Zwingli," Gideon Davis of Georgetown, B.C., began a
series of articles in the last (July) number of the first volume.
Clear as crystal and chaste in diction, they commanded attention
as a criterion of the lay calibre engaged on the side of Reform.
Rev. Dr. John French reappears under his proper name, and
McCaine has the closing article on Expediency. It was intended
to supplement his series, supporting the inalienable right of the
locality and laity, and is a calm, forceful presentation.

The periodical was gaining a much wider circulation than the
Repository, and wherever it went it made converts to Reform.
As might be expected, the opposition to it intensified as its
popularity increased. Extra copies were sent to the address of
Reformers for distribution, and it is in evidence that this prac-

PREACHER OPPOSITION TO "MUTUAL RIGHTS" 11

tice, coming to the knowledge of presiding elders, influence
was used with the postmasters, if members or adherents of the
Church, to refuse delivery and destroy them. Much secrecy had
to be observed in the circulation, for if a member was known
to be a subscriber or a reader, he was put under suspicion and
marked to his disadvantage. It will serve to break the serious
trend of these remarks to cite from Rev. Dr. George Brown's
experience. "When the Mutual Bights appeared, I ordered it
to be sent to nearly all the leading men of my district [he was
Elder on Monongahela at the time], and paid for it in advance
out of my own scanty funds. So that paper was read in all parts
of the district, privately ; for a time even the preachers were not
allowed to know anything about it, nor did any one suspect my
agency in the matter. On the subject of church government in
public and in private I maintained a most profound silence ; and
from the office I held it was generally supposed that I was un-
friendly to the changes contended for, and the periodical was
kept very carefully out of sight wherever I went. When dis-
mounting from my horse at the house of Thomas Maple, a valu-
able local preacher, to whom I had sent the paper, I heard sister
Maple call out to one of the girls : 'Run, Sal, run! and take them
Mutual Bights off the table; there comes the Elder.' And 'Sal'
must have taken and concealed them in some by-corner, for they
were not to be seen during my stay. So it was in all places,
no one being disposed to let me know that he read so obnoxious
a paper as the Mutual Bights." x It was severely under ban, and
yet the circulation increased.

Taking their cue from the Baltimore organization, Union
Societies were formed North, South, East, and West, wherever,
in fact, the Mutual Bights found lodgment and a nucleus was
gathered. Specimens of the Constitutions may be found in the
Mutual Bights; they were identical in purpose with that of Balti-
more. The organizers, loyal to Methodism if not to the hier-
archy, did not dream that their proceedings could be construed
as a violation of the Discipline; the General Conference had
stigmatized their numerical inferiority so extremely that this
method was proposed; there seemed no other available, to ascer-
tain the sense of the membership. But to the authorities these
societies were a new turn, an unexpected phase ; a free press for

1 "Recollections of Itinerant Life," by Rev. George Brown, D.D., Cincinnati
and Springfield. 1863. 8vo. 45G pp. Cloth. With steel portrait. For citation,
see p. 125.

78 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

discussion of the merits of the cause was menacing enough to
their ancient hold of power, this threatened to make a majority
of a minority, and the exasperation following the discovery knew
no bounds. Let them, however, be judged charitably; they had
come to the possession of a peculiar "system," which made
automata of the individuals, by inheritance from the "fathers."
The celebrated Dr. Priestley, now resident in Pennsylvania, who
had been a close philosophical observer of it both in England and
America, wisely says : " For my own part I have no doubt but
that the leading men among the Methodists were influenced
originally by none but the best motives, a general concern for
the souls of men. Nothing else, I think, can account for their
conduct as they were circumstanced. But finding themselves by
degrees at the head of a large body of people, and in possession
of considerable power and influence, they must not have been
men if they had not felt the love of power gratified in such a
situation; and they must have been even more than men, if their
subsequent conduct had not been more or less influenced by it." 1
As to the fact of its concentration, let Dr. Coke, as cited in the
first volume, be again called to witness. In 1795 he wrote:
" Hitherto we have seen, since the death of Mr. Wesley, the most
perfect Aristocracy existing, perhaps, on earth. The people have
no power ; we the whole, in the fullest sense which can be conceived.
If there be any change in favor of religious liberty, the people
certainly should have some power." They had come to believe
the " system " everything, the fruitful source of all the marvellous
spiritual results, and hence it, even more than doctrines and
means of grace, was " Methodism." So to oppose the system was
to oppose everything sacred in memory and divine in origin; how
could the Head of the Church give them such success if his signet
of direct approval was not on it? That it could be improved by
any innovations was simply the suggestion of backsliders or am-
bitious people. To misrepresent the innovations proposed and
to impugn the motives of the innovators were steps certain to
follow. The young preacher looked to his senior, and the senior
to the Elder, and he did not think of doubting or inquiring for
himself as to either. The confession of Snethen in the former
volume as to his prejudices against O'Kelly thus imbibed covers
a multitude of like cases. Nor must it be inferred that intelli-
gent laymen were few who, reasoning from the preachers' prem-
ises, did not sink all questions of right and expediency in the

1 Mutual Rights, Vol. I. p. 244.

RATIONALE OF LAY-REFORM 79

old paths and the good way they and their fathers had known.
Moreover, two considerations were all powerful with many in
arresting the prevalence of the new opinions : with the preachers
the Conference had control of their support, and, as shall be
exhibited later, the will-power of even strong men was held in
abeyance when bread was the weight in the other scale ; with the
laity these preachers were the instruments of their conversion, —
they knew them to be good men, and they were unwilling to dis-
turb the old order of things even to make it better, if the preachers
demurred. A much larger number, however, it was believed,
were ready to sacrifice everything for an " Idea, " 1 like the Eevo-
lutionary fathers. Liberty was an abstraction, for what did the
small tax upon tea or the Stamp Act amount to practically ? It
could not be called an oppression ; but the vital point on which
these patriots staked their " lives, their fortunes, and their sacred
honor " was the enactment without their consent. A large majority,
it was believed, were with Reform, but the authorities did not
suffer the only method of ascertaining it through the Union
Societies to demonstrate it. And here Snethen's dictum must be
requoted : " Power combined with interest and inclination cannot
be controlled by logic. But even power shrinks from the test of
logic." The Eeform periodical and the Union Societies were such
a test of logic, and the hierarchy shrank from it. They held the
power and felt no inclination of surrender, so logic could not con-
trol. There was a last resort : Expel Reform out of the Church.
The second volume of the Mutual Rights opens with a prefatory
statement of its rule of conduct, from which these sentiments are
quoted : " They trust that prudence, candor, and moderation will
mark their progress ; and as they will cultivate an honest inten-

1 Extract from a letter to the editors of the Mutual Rights, pp. 386, 387, May,
1825, from a Layman of Tennessee: "And it is no less strange that in a land of
freemen, and in an age when the divine right of kings and priests to make laws
for the church and state without their consent, is universally denied ; such a body
as the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church should deny the
right of suffrage to her members. But such is the melancholy fact, as appears
from the circular of that august body of divines. At sight of this I despaired of
seeing any salutary reform shortly, if ever. I had almost concluded to unite my-
self with some dissenting branch of the Methodist Church. In this I should have
done violence to some of the finest feelings of my nature. But on seeing the
Mutual Rights, my hopes revived, and I have concluded to cleave to my Church
and use what little influence I may have in disseminating the principles of reform.
We are about to organize a Union Society in this place ; you will hear from us
after our next meeting, which is the second Saturday in May. Our Presiding
Elder, I understand, insinuates something like trying to effect our expulsion.
This we shall risk."

80 HISTOMY OF METHODIST BEFORM

tion to promote the best interests of religion in general, and the
permanent peace and prosperity of the Methodist Church in par-
ticular, nothing shall induce them to turn aside from their great
object, or to indulge in personal altercation. In the meantime,
however, they renew the tender of their columns to any of their
brethren in the opposition who will set forth with candor and
moderation the arguments by which they are influenced to oppose
a change in our church government; but personal detraction or
mere declamation, from whichever side of the question, will not
be permitted. The Committee take this opportunity to repeal
the declaration to their brethren, and to the world, that they
have no design to separate from the Church, much less to divide
it; but to the contrary they are laboring to prevent secession and
divisions; for they desire most sincerely to remain in the com-
munion and fellowship with their brethren of the great Methodist
family of these United States." As the whole question of the
subsequent expulsions will turn upon this conduct of the periodi-
cal, nothing but an examination of the volumes by the impartial
inquirer can determine it, and therefore the writer shall have on
deposit every form of evidence appealed to in this History free
to the research of every such inquirer.

It is affirmed that, reasonably construed, the editorial Com-
mittee adhered to their purpose, and challenge is made of a
parallel to the liberal and Christian spirit which offered free of
cost to the opposers space for all the arguments they could pro-
duce. In the first volume they availed of it to fully one-third
the forty pages each month for the year. The second volume was
not so freely used, but "One of the Laity," John F Watson of
Philadelphia, continued to use the Reform periodical in defence
of the old system. To reenforce this advertised purpose of the
editors, Asa Shinn contributed two papers : " An Address to the
Reformers," which for the Christlike spirit and controversial
moderation have never been excelled. A brief extract will serve
to exhibit the animus : " If we were ever under obligation to act
for God and for eternity, in any period of our lives, we are surely
under obligation at this eventful crisis. To be expelled from the
Church, or to withdraw from the Church, or to reform the Church,
— each requires the most serious and deliberative exercise of the
human faculties, and ought never to be attempted or carried into
execution under the influence of a trifling, prejudiced, or incon-
siderate mind." Snethen followed with a like appeal on "The
Necessity for Union," and the records will prove that these two

CONTROVERSIAL FAIRNESS OF REFORMERS 81

master spirits kept in subjection the impatient element among
the Eeformers. Gideon Davis continued to discuss the issues
with his graceful pen and faultless spirit. The high literary
character of the periodical was preserved. Jennings, the classical
scholar, was editor-in-chief, and nothing crude or slovenly was
allowed to pass his critical oversight. The report of the editors
to the Baltimore Union Society showed that Eeform, keeping
step with the circulation of the paper, had spread into Virginia,
North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama in the South; and Ohio,
Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana, Illinois, and Missouri in the
West; and Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Massachu-
setts, and even Vermont, while Maryland was in the lead for
numbers and influence. The new editorial Committee was Jen-
nings, Williams, Kesley, and Reese (John S.) of the ministers,
and Arthur Emmerson, Lambert Thomas, John Chappell, Wesley
Starr, Jesse Comegys, and James Hindes of the laity.

Eev. H. B. Bascoi , under his own signature, writes to the
chairman June 20, 1825, a striking letter eulogistic of Eev. John
Summerfield, who had from that fell disease consumption just
closed a brilliant career. He will be heard from frequently in
the future under his several norms de illume, Presbyter, Dissenter,
Neale, and with pronounced opinions and unflinching adherence as
Vindex. Next to the English Summerfield he was the bright par-
ticular star of early Methodism as a pulpit orator. Born in 1796,
in New York State, his father, under stress of debt, removed with
his large family to the frontier of that state, thence to Kentucky,
and finally to Ohio. Henry entered the ministry at sixteen years
of age, a precocious giant in intellect and physique. To the slur
that he was a " new recruit " in Reform, he made answer April,
1828, " Vindex was one among reformers who drafted a memorial
to the General Conference of 1816, twelve years ago, praying for
an important alteration in the government of the Church — and
as early as 1822 published his thoughts at length on this subject
in the Wesleyan Repository." 1 His father died early, leaving a
large and dependent family to Henry, the eldest son, as their
only support. Not economical by habit, pecuniary embarrass-
ment haunted him through life and delayed his marriage until
p'ast forty years of age. It is the key to his history and the
extenuation of his failure openly to follow the fortunes of Reform
to the last extremity of self-abnegation.

1 Jennings's "Exposition of the Late Controversy." 8vo. 247pp. Harrod,
publisher, Baltimore, 1831. For citation, see p. 214.

VOL. II — G

82 BISTOBY OF METHODIST BEFOBM

A purpose was formed by the friends of Reform in Bedford
County, Tenn., to organize a Union Society, and in February,
1825, a tentative meeting was held, and a call made for such an
organization in May ensuing, which subsequently met in a large
barn just out of Unionville in Bedford County. The Presiding
Elder of the district, James Gynne, in the majesty of a true
hierarch, resolved to estop the proceedings, and in April read out
from the Quarterly conference the names of fourteen official mem-
bers, some of whom were local preachers, with the announcement
that " these brethren had put themselves out of the Church, and
were no longer to be considered Methodists." Undeterred, the
Union Society was formed in May, William B. Elgin, President,
and Richard Warner, Secretary. It was composed of a number
of the leading members and citizens of the county. They issued
a circular in which they say : " There is a work in circulation [the
Mutual Rights], published in Baltimore, in which the arguments
on both sides of the question which agitates us are set forth; we
would recommend our brethren to procure and read the work;
give the arguments on both sides due weight, and if, after a
patient investigation, we should still differ, we do not see why we
should quarrel with or anathematize each other. . . . We again
declare (the assertion of the Presiding Elder to the contrary not-
withstanding) that we have not 'left the Methodist Church.'
Neither do we design to do so while there is the most distant
prospect of our being of any use to or in that Church." This
independent course stung the Elder to the quick, and at once sys-
tematic expulsions were inaugurated, some nine local preachers
being of the number. Appeals were taken to the ensuing Annual
Conference, which met in October (it is to be regretted that the
name of the presiding Bishop cannot be ascertained, but probably
Roberts, as in these days he tried to hold an even balance with
the contestants), and after a fair investigation these mountaineers
decided that the Elder had exceeded his authority and ordered
the restoration of the expelled members, the Bishop of course
concurring. The zeal of the Elder had eaten him up. It will
be seen that this first attempt to expel Reform out of the Church
was an abortion, because the process of gestation was imperfect.
The brethren in Baltimore addressed the persecuted in Tennessee
a letter of sympathy and support, and it was this bond of union,
with the steady spread of Reform, coupled with their undeviating
resolve not to secede, that led the authorities at last to sanction
expulsions. In February following, 1826, a temptation so to do

UNION SOCIETIES FORMED — EXPULSIONS 83

was presented by a circular addressed the Reformers everywhere
by the Stillwell and other seceders in New York and the North,
now a considerable body,1 inviting them to send delegates to a
Convention to be called in the city of New York, " to form a Con-
stitution for a new Methodist Church." A special messenger
was sent to the Baltimore Society, and they made official answer,
February 15, 1826, in which they restate their position : " In the
number of the Mutual Bights for August, 1825, p. 2, we have
made the declaration to the world that we have no design to
separate from the Church, much less to divide it; but, on the
contrary, we are laboring to prevent secessions and divisions,
. . . consequently any participation in the measures you propose
would be inconsistent with our avowed intentions." Signed,
John Chappell, President.

1 The secession of W. M. Stillwell in New York City originally carried from
the Methodist Episcopal Church about three hundred members in 1820-21.
Through the kindness of Rev. J. J. Smith, D.D., the printed minutes of those who
adhered to this organization for the years 1824, 1825, 1826, and 1827 are before the
writer and enable him to give a fairly correct idea of the growth of this body.
From those of 1824 it is ascertained that the " Yearly Conference of the Methodist
Society " consisted of twenty-eight delegates from churches in New York City,
three in number, and other places in New Jersey, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, etc.
The total membership is set down 2139. In 1825 they had churches in western
New York, Connecticut, etc., and claimed an increase of 386. In 1826 it appears
that William M. Stillwell set up an independent Conference, disowning the large
majority, so true is it that " secession breeds an exaggerated individualism and
carries with it the possibility and menace of further schisms." The regular Con-
ference held its session notwithstanding as "An annual State Conference " in the
Sullivan Street church, New York, Stillwell having given notice through the New
York Observer that it would not be allowed to meet as intended in his Christie
Street church in New York. It seems that he favored union with the " Radicals "
of Maryland and elsewhere whose first convention assembled in November of this
year. The regular body held on its way, and it was to it that the Reformers of
Baltimore declined sending delegates on their solicitations elsewhere noticed. In
turn they disowned Stillwell and his church. The name of Lorenzo Dow is found
associated with this movement as " general missionary," and he continued with
them in his eccentric manner until his death, finding sympathy and support among
Methodist Protestants in Maryland in his last illness. A society of 110 was
claimed in Baltimore, and a separate conference, called the Rochester, in west-
ern New York, but for 1827 the statistics are not furnished. Nearly this whole
organization eventually merged in the Methodist Protestant Church, and fur-
nished names which are honored in its after history, as Aaron G. Brewer, who re-
moved to Georgia, and in which state they also claimed a considerable membership,
Samuel Budd of New Jersey, James Covell, and Isaac Fister. This organization
must not be confounded with the Reform Methodists, also elsewhere referred to,
who originated in secessions in 1814, and spread into a number of states North
and West, and were in existence as late as 1840 ; but these also found a more
compact organization in the Methodist Protestant Church, into which they were
absorbed in large part.

CHAPTER V

Roanoke District Conference, North Carolina, and its Reformers — Rev. W. W
Hill's trial and acquittal ; the Granville Union Society and expulsion of
Lewellyn Jones ; other expulsions ; Ira Harris's defence ; J. R. Williams's
masterly summation of the charges against these Reformers — Persecution of
Reformers in Baltimore; "Baltimore" James Smith retires as a Reformer;
reasons — Effort to secure unanimity among the Reformers ; call of a Conven-
tion in Baltimore for 1826 to this end — Analysis of Dr. Bond's character and
methods as an anti-reformer ; tricky and " dotingly fond of dispute " — Chris-
tian Advocate first issued September, 1826; a battery against Reform — Shinn
on the situation; a masterly plea — Bishops' meeting in 1827; what it did —
General Reform Convention in Baltimore, November, 1827; what it did —
"Union Societies" and Wesley's "United Societies" kindred — Bascom to
the front as a Reformer; vindication of him as such.

The Roanoke District Conference of North Carolina took a
conspicuous and early part in the Reform movement. There was
great dissatisfaction throughout the South over the action of the
General Conference of 1820, which met their petition for gov-
ernmental recognition by enacting the District Conference meas-
ure, the itinerants thus assuming to legislate for them, as
occupying the same position of nonage as the laity. The Roanoke
brethren were as courageous as they were gifted, and the series
of protests and circulars addressed by them to the general Church
and the itinerants are among the ablest issued during the course
of the controversy, and may be found in full in Paris's "History."
They memorialized the General Conference of 1824 in a calm,
courteous, and dignified address. A Union Society was formed
at Sampson's meeting-house in Halifax County, November S,
1824. It was the first formed after that of Baltimore, May 21,
1824, and after which most of them were patterned. It was
composed of eleven persons, Revs. Messrs. Price, Smith, Bel-
lamy, Hunter, Hines, Whitaker, and Jones, local preachers ; and
William E. Bellamy, Morris, King, and McLean, laymen. It
soon after grew to thirty-nine. In April, 1825, Rev. W. W.
Hill of Matamuskeet circuit, a former Itinerant in good standing,
was received. He was zealous, educated, and eloquent. In the
following month of August he was summoned to appear for trial

84

NORTH CAROLINA REFORMERS — W. W BILL 85

under the rule forbidding "inveighing against the discipline,"
etc., by Rev. Benjamin Edge, the assistant preacher on the cir-
cuit, on " next Sunday, August 7, at the chapel in Matamuskeet,
before a committee of local preachers." He had two days' notice
and was twenty miles distant, but he was in attendance. The
notice gave him the privilege, " you can withdraw under Church
censure, if you see proper, if you do it in a formal manner."
The trial occurred, and, after the case was stated by the prose-
cutor, Hill made an eloquent and masterful defence, which Paris
has preserved for posterity as a specimen of the mental calibre
and moral stamina of the Reformers. It concludes : "And now,
my brethren of the committee, bring in a verdict which shall
comport with the interests of your Church, and the rights of your
country, and I shall be satisfied." They reported, "No cause of
action." The committee were honest and capable men, so that
Edge's persecution miscarried in its purpose. So generally were
the local preachers everywhere enlisted as Reformers that in not
a few localities it was impossible for the Itinerants to select
committees of trial, "organized to convict." In July, 1826, the
Granville Union Society was organized on Tar River circuit,
composed of the best material of the Church. A few days there-
after the preacher in charge, Benton Field, cited Lewellyn Jones,
a man of irreproachable character, and three others, Macon, Val-
entine, and Hunt, for their failure to " yield to reproof so far as
to engage in future to leave off such pernicious conduct," i.e.
circulating Reform literature and belonging to the Union Society.
They were brought before the class of which they were members,
and enough were found who agreed with the preacher in charge,
to enable him to infer that he had a right to expel them, but
when it came before the church, the question was not put,
"guilty" or "not guilty," this might have failed to secure even
a bare majority vote, but the prosecutor said, " All of you who
think their conduct will have a bad effect, will signify it by
rising up." A majority acquiesced in this view of it, though it
had no connection with the charge preferred. To indicate how
arbitrary was this act, four days after a local preacher of the
same class was arraigned before a committee of his peers, and
though strenuous efforts were made by the prosecutor to prevent
any Reformer from being of it, he was acquitted on the same
testimony. The venerable Lewellyn Jones appealed to the Quar-
terly Conference, and the Presiding Elder, Rev. William Comp-
ton, in summing up the case against him said in substance, " Men

86 HISTOBY OF METHODIST REFORM

may forfeit church privileges without committing an immoral
act," and instanced a case or two in criminal practice in which men
had been punished for thieves and rogues who had not actually-
stolen anything ; and that men had been dealt with as Tories who
had not loaded their guns nor pulled a trigger, alleging that the
keeping of company with rogues and Tories was sufficient proof
of guilt. Having performed this task, he resumed the chair and
put the vote; and the majority confirmed the sentence from
which Jones had appealed."1 Three more were subsequently
expelled, and the seven appealed to the Annual Conference.
That body decided that "it was not maladministration." How
true Snethen's words, " Men who have the same interests will be
prone to act alike."

A correspondence of singular merit — a polemical bout — fol-
lowed these expulsions, between Rev. Ira Harris of the Eeformers
and Eev. William Compton, Presiding Elder, which has also
been preserved by Paris in the full text. It turns upon the issue
made by Harris, who cited from the Discipline the only law
bearing upon the case : " If the accused person be found guilty, by
the decision of a majority of members before whom he is brought
to trial, and the crime be such as is expressly forbidden by the word
of God, sufficient to exclude a person from the kingdom of grace and
glory, let the minister or preacher who has charge of the circuit
expel him." The italicized words define the law evidently, and
Compton found it impossible to wrest it from this plain meaning
which guarantees membership unless immorality is involved;
and it is in direct contravention of the rule as to " inveighing
against the discipline," though it had been pressed into the ser-
vice from O'Kelly's day to 1830, as well as other forced inter-
pretations of certain sections in the "General Rules," notably
that which names "speaking evil of ministers," though it was
incontrovertibly established that this reference by Wesley was
to the English revolutionists and referred exclusively to the
" ministers " of the British Crown in their civil capacity, and is
so interpreted by Coke and Asbury in the Notes on the Discipline
of 1796. So desperate were the straits in which the prosecutors
found themselves when the Episcopacy finally sanctioned expul-
sion as the only method left to extirpate a movement which it
was found logically impossible to meet. The general case is thus
enlarged here because it will answer for all others which followed,
though the literature of the subject on both sides affirmed and

i Paris's " History," p. 99.

CASE OF BEFOBMEBS IN A NUT-SHELL 87

denied through all the kaleidoscopic aspects of merely dialectical
fence and parry. Once for all the cases have been summarized
by James E. Williams as follows: "1st. Those brethren were
excommunicated for no act of immorality; for the neglect of no
Christian duty ; nor for the dissemination of false doctrines.
2d. They were not expelled for the violation of any rule of disci-
pline; for though charged with inveighing against the discipline,
the charge was not sustained. 3d. They were expelled for becom-
ing members of a Union Society, the avowed design of which,
according to its constitution, was 'for the purpose of correspond-
ing with the brethren within the United States, who are favor-
able to Reform, on such subjects as will tend to improve the
form of our church government. ' 4th. They were expelled for
joining said Union Society, not because this act was a violation
of any law, divine or human, but because in the opinion of the
preacher and a majority of those present at the trial, 'their being
members of the Union Society would have a bad effect. ' 5th. Not-
withstanding the obvious injustice of this act, and the tyrannical
conduct of the preacher in charge, yet the Virginia Annual Con-
ference, with three bishops present, declared that the act of
expulsion 'was not maladministration.' " 1 A travelling preacher
afterward characterized it as "worse than passing an ex post facto
law, which, according to the American Constitution, is destruc-
tive of civil liberty, and inconsistent with good government."

The news of these transactions spread far and wide, and on the
Reformers and their opponents, in Baltimore especially, the effect
was to foment bitter discussion, crimination, and recrimination,
the bandying of epithets such as only an ecclesiastical contro-
versy can engender, social church ties were sundered, families
were divided in sentiment, the opponents of Reform exulted over
the expulsions and warned their Reforming friends what they
might expect in the near future; and the Reformers, burning
with indignation, did not mince their words in condemnation.
Amid it all, though scarcely credible, revivals took place, both
parties meeting at the church altars and working together to this
end. But this fellowship was not allowed to continue. Petty
persecutions began of the Reformers by declining to renew their
licenses to exhort or to preach, and dropping them from their
official positions. It was the custom of the locality annually to
arrange a Plan of Appointments 2 for the city and suburbs under

1 " History," pp. 133,134.

2 One of these printed Plans is now before the writer.

88 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

the direction of the Itinerants. The Keformers found their names
excluded from this Plan, though such notable preachers as Jen-
nings, John S. Reese, Daniel E. Reese, Sr., McCaine, Williams,
and others, were of their number. But more than all these causes
of distraction the Reformers had not concentrated, as urged by-
Stockton, Snethen, and Shinn, upon the one issue of lay-repre-
sentation ; the local preachers, both of the retired ministers, like
McCaine, and the locality preachers, like Jennings, were unwill-
ing to sink their parity claim to participation in the government.
October, 1825, an event occurred which gave the cause of
Reform a set-back. A few months before a young preacher of
the Baltimore Conference addressed a note to James (Baltimore)
Smith, craving him to define the position of the controvertists
and his own. He was stationed in Annapolis at the time and
replied, the correspondence appearing in the Mutual Bights of
October. In this letter he defined his own and the Reformers'
position clearly without yielding the slightest point, but indicated
his doubt of the practicability of the measure in the present
temper of the contestants, as his opinion was that it could be
accomplished only through a convention of the Church. He
disclaimed having "changed sides," but deplored the lack of
unanimity in the aims of the Reformers, and the ill feeling
engendered. He asks, therefore, the privilege of retiring from
this "controversial field in quietude," without aspersion of his
motives by any one; adding, "I do not foreclose myself from
any future efforts, if my convictions should lead me to make
them," etc. McCaine reviewed his letter with some sharpness,
and Shinn criticised a single statement of it with his usual mild-
ness of diction, but force of argument. A short period, however,
developed a fact which, perhaps, does more than anything else to
explain his retirement. The Minutes show that he superannuated
the following spring, removed to Baltimore, where he died the
same year, 1826, or about a year after this correspondence, and
in the forty-third or fourth year of his age. Evidently ill health
warned him to leave the fray. The Conference obituary is brief
and gives no particulars of his illness, noting, however, his con-
nection with Reform, " He commanded respect even from those
who differed from him in some points of church polity." He
died "in great peace of mind, after evincing a striking example
of patience and fortitude in his last sufferings."

The second volume of the Mutual Mights closed with a subscrip-
tion doubled in number, and its finances in good shape. "Frank-

REFORMERS WERE NOT "RADICALS" 89

lin," Eev. W W- Hill, appeared as a contributor from North
Carolina. Shinn and Snethen, with McCaine, occupied large
space. Shinn, in one of his articles, made the sensible but
"radical" suggestion, "except, therefore, the reformers can be
successful in ultimately obtaining a constitution, they might as
well give the matter up ; for no reformation short of this is worth
contending for; because none short of this would secure any per-
manent advantage to the Church." His acute and logical mind
saw plainly that the enactments of 1784 and 1808 were in no
proper sense a "constitution," so that any future General Con-
ference, sovereignty residing perpetually in it, could undo any
concessions that might be made if unguaranteed by conventional
sanction. In this view most of the Reformers acquiesced, so
that their memorials only hoped for favorable General Confer-
ence action looking to such measures as would make changes
permanent. While they were radical in their examination of
the foundations, they were not radical in haste, as all the facts
testify. Indeed, it was this conservative ground that tested the
patience of the Episcopal " radicals " more than anything else.
Foregone in their conclusions that the " institutions of the
Church, as they received them from the fathers," should never
be innovated, they ardently wished one of two things : that the
Reformers would precipitate action, or take some ground that
would justify their expulsion before the world and other churches.
They gratified them in neither. The much regretted withdrawal
of Smith, and the insidious declension of some others, presently
to be uncovered, led the Episcopal party to spread the rumor that
many were abandoning Reform ; so that it called for an official
denial with the necessary exceptions.

One effect of it was to admonish the local preachers, whose
uncompromising demands had done the cause so much damage as
almost to extinguish it in Philadelphia and Wilmington, that
they must surcease.1 Accordingly, the Baltimore Union Society

1 Despite these evil results their cause seemed so just not only intrinsically,
but they had before them the example of the Allenites (colored) Zion Church,
which organized years before as a secession from the mother church, giving the
local preachers an equal recognition in the General Conference, and of the United
Brethren (Otterbein-Boehm Church) which, at its convention of 1815, in Ohio,
framed a Discipline of which the following features are noticed : " They recog-
nize the fundamental principle of liberty, the right of suffrage ; for the people
elect their representatives to the General Conference. They give to the local
ministry a seat in the Annual Conference, and make them alike eligible with the
travelling preachers to a seat in the General Conference. And by doing away
every ordination except one, they remove all occasion of pride from among the

90 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

in January, 1826, passed a series of resolutions, the locality-
cooperating, and appointed a committee to " consider the propriety
of calling a convention of the friends of Eeform," "for the pur-
pose of securing unanimity of sentiment and harmony of expres-
sion in the memorials to be sent up to the ensuing General
Conference at Pittsburgh, Pa., in 1828." It was approved, and
the committee " recommended conventions to be assembled in the
several states of the Union, where brethren are inclined to adopt
the measure, for the exclusive purpose of making inquiry into
the propriety and expediency of asking for a representation,
and taking measures preparatory to the formation of a memo-
rial expressly upon that subject." Baltimore was suggested as
a suitable place for the General Convention.1 The Report
was printed and circulated through the United States so far
as Reformers could make it reach. This alignment of Reform
forces was a serious menace to the Episcopal party. It meant
sensible business, and was hailed by the Reformers as a means of
composing their differences of opinion. It infused new life into
the movement, and prompted the organization of a number of
Union Societies. Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and other points
became additional centres of agitation, now that the objective of
the leading minds, Snethen, Shinn, Stockton, Davis, and others,
lay-representation alone as the issue, leaving all other questions
for future adjustment, had been attained. The controversy grew
more heated everywhere as extreme measures of repression were
resorted to by the Bourbon conservatives, and equally extreme
positions were taken by the more intemperate Reformers. It
was an inevitable concomitant of such a party spirit.

Reform in Baltimore unhappily developed under three phases :
the local preacher section, who were also lay-representationists;
the lay-representationists, who felt this to be the sheet-anchor
and other questions subsidiary ; and the two sections based their
claim upon the right of it, which was the view of all the leading
Reformers. A third, and smaller, section asked for concessions
to both the locality and the laity, but based it entirely upon its
expediency. It claimed to be represented by a " large meeting "

ministry on the score of office."* They lacked only lay-representation to make
the discipline a model one for the Reformers in Methodism, a feature which in
after years was also introduced.

1 It did not materialize as a " General Convention," but one was held for the
state of Maryland and the District of Columbia in November of this year.

* Mutual Rights, Vol. II. p. 39.

ANTI-REFORMER, DR. BOND, DISSECTED 91

of the members of the Church, as already disclosed — the meeting
of which Thomas Kelso was Chairman and Dr. Thomas E. Bond
Secretary, early in 1824. The expediency view was looked upon
by Jennings and others as a practical surrender of the whole ques-
tion. He avers that at this meeting Dr. Bond, who was a local
preacher, insisted upon being admitted as a layman, that he
might be on the committee to prepare the memorial, and was so
recognized, because not ordained ; and he was probably the author
of it. It took the ground of expediency, and Jennings says, " In
the instant when that part of the Eeport was read, which con-
tained this fatal proposition, we considered it a known surrender
of the cause of reform ; and we have continued to view it in the
same light until now.1 Prior to this time, Dr. Bond was an
active patron of the Wesleyan Repository, probably one of the
writers for that work. Since then we have not known any act of
his which favored our cause." 2

It is the cue to Dr. Bond's after career as a violent anti-
reformer. He stood as its protagonist until the day of his death.
An analysis of this remarkable man is demanded, for the reason
that he was criticised and denounced without stint of language
by the Reformers, and lauded and coddled by the Episcopal party
in equally extreme eulogy. And for this reason the writer will
fortify a judgment of his own, by presenting Dr. Bond as his own
witness, contemporaries of his own Church, and their united testi-
mony as supported by Reformers who knew him well, and the
facts of his anti-reform history. Others may thus be made the
judges of his motives, and shall furnish an explanation of his
otherwise exceptional conduct toward his former friends and
coadjutors in the Church. First, Dr. Bond vs. Dr. Bond. In an
article in the New York Christian Advocate, while he was editor,
in 1854, on "The Sanctity of Ministerial Character," and after-
ward rebuked in the Zion's Herald, he declared : " We have never
assailed the personal reputation of any one because they differed

1 Rev. H. B. Bascom, in his " Summary Declaration of Rights," in the eleventh
article says: "Expediency and right are different things. Nothing is expedient
that is unjust. Necessity and convenience may render a form of government
useful and effective for a time, which afterward, under a change of circumstances
and an accumulation of responsibility, may become oppressive and intolerable.
That system of things which cannot be justified by the Word of God and the com-
mon sense of mankind can never be expedient." Controversion of this position
is impossible with success, and therefore the ground of Jennings and the Reform-
ers on this question. Expediency, as applied to Methodist Reform, is Right,
cringing and fawning before Power — Right, crawling like a reptile on its belly.

2 Introduction to Jennings's " Exposition," p. 8.

92 HISTOBY OF METHODIST REFORM

with us in opinion; but when the ministers of the Methodist
Episcopal Church turn reformers after their fashion, and denounce
and defame our institutions and propose wild and impracticable
innovations on her economy, we consider it a right and a duty to
show that they are not entitled to the confidence of the Church,
as we would in a court of justice claim the right to invalidate the
testimony of a witness by showing that his personal character
and reputation did not entitle him to credence." Eev. Dr.
Wise, in the Herald, reproducing this remarkable deliverance,
says : " There can be no mistake as to the meaning of such lan-
guage. It is not a claim to put down wrong opinions by hard
argument, — that would be right and just, — but it is the distinct
claim of a right to treat ministerial character and reputation in a
manner which we have shown to be forbidden by the Bible and
by the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church."1 It will
be seen that he held the same right to defame a man's character,
or reputation, in 1825-30, if his controversial end could thereby
be secured. A former allusion to Dr. Bond gives a characteristic
of him called by his friends sagacity, and by his opponents
trickery. Eev. Dr. Augustus Webster, editor of the Methodist
Protestant, July 13, 1844, cites the Richmond Christian Advocate,
edited by Dr. L. M. Lee, of June, 1844, who elaborates this
phase of his character as follows : " This ambiguous, equivocal,
and Jesuitical preamble and resolution, capable of being explained
either way, as policy might dictate, was concocted for the pur-
pose of 'being all things to all men,' and to catch the votes of all
the factions in the Conference who would coalesce in any action
against the Bishop." This refers to Bond's "substitute" for the
resolution "requiring Bishop Andrew to resign." Dr. Webster
then cites from the New York Advocate, edited by Bond, for
August 23, 1843, this admission from him, "Heretofore it has
been a matter of rejoicing that those who left us, and set up for
themselves [reference to the Beformers of 1827-30], have only
differed with us in opinion as to the form of church government."
On which Webster comments, " When it is remembered that the
Senior Editor has avowed himself the contriver of the mock trials

1 It is remarkable that this judgment is indorsed by Dr. Buckley in an edito-
rial, Christian Advocate, September 10, 1876, in these words : " If Dr. Bond came
to believe a man to be upon the whole inimical to the interests of the Methodist
Episcopal Church, he did not hesitate to make it known, and brought his
unequalled wealth of sarcastic appellations and similes into use to restrain the
influence of his opponent." This note is added in a revision of this work, Decem-
ber 23, 1890.

WITNESSES AND DR. BOND 93

and bitter persecutions of the Reformers, it is to be hoped that
the Episcopal Methodists, who have at last found out his sophistry
and cunning, will do justice to the memory of the men whom he
succeeded but too far in misrepresenting."

The Southern Advocates in 1844-45, ringing the changes on

this exhibition of himself in the General Conference of 1844,

unwittingly testify that the methods of trickery were identical

with those he used against the Reformers in 1825-30. So much

for his own witness and that of his contemporaries of the same

Church. The character-reading Snethen, long years before these

witnesses could be thus summoned, said of him, when, early in

1827, it was bruited about by the anti-reformers that Dr. Bond

was about to issue his " Appeal to the Methodists," as a foretoken

of his menace to " write down Reform " : " If his book cannot be

answered, I will be among the first to proclaim him victor; if it

can be, he must prepare to pay up all old arrears due to the cause

of reform. The cause is great and the stake is great. This

brother at arms has the advantage of 'sun and wind.' The

ground has been familiar to him from the beginning. He has

been in our citadel and is acquainted with our camp. If he

means to spring a mine, his leisure and security in preparing it

have been ample. The choice of his weapons and of the time,

the place, and manner of attack are all his own." After the

pamphlet appeared, Snethen said : " I say now what I meant last

March. The reformers did once think doctor Bond as worthy

of their confidence; and in writing against us, if he knew of any

secret design among us, we expected that he would publish them

all." Once more: "I now not only advise the friends of reform

not to separate from the Church, but I warn, and caution, and

entreat Dr. Bond, and all who are baptized into his spirit, not to

turn men out of the Church because they mean to petition the

General Conference to grant them a representation, for this may

lead to final separation." "For upward of thirty years I have

been familiar with all doctor Bond's axioms and arguments as

with my alphabet. I am surprised when I hear of travelling

preachers of some standing professing to be convinced by this

Appeal." And, finally: "As a writer against the principles of

reform, doctor Bond is not to be feared ; but as a writer against

reformers he is to be dreaded ; upon principles he soon gets out

of his depth, but upon men he is quite at home." Dr. Buckley,

in New York Christian Advocate, as late as 1894, sketching his

career, justly says, as a summation of his calibre, " He was a

94 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

master of an English style, a dialectician, a reasoner, and, when
his feelings were not too much excited, a philosopher." Unhap-
pily, when he locked horns in controversy, he was always warmly
excited. His habitual mental temper, Wesley, in his "Notes,"
aptly describes as "dotingly fond of dispute." On his death-
bed, reviewing the past, he said, in substance, that in all his
efforts his motive was the good of the Church. No one need
doubt it; but in the heat of those efforts against Eeform and
Eeformers, and against the Southern wing of the General Con-
ference of 1844, he was the unsparing traducer of other men's
motives. This extended analysis will save space in the end,
as Dr. Bond shall frequently appear upon the controversial
scene.

The call of a Convention of representatives of all the Union
Societies to unify the memorials to the ensuing General Con-
ference, the greatly increased circulation of the Mutual Rights,
and the spread of Reform principles, probably suggested to the
Episcopal authorities that the policy of silence, lest the move-
ment should be helped by advertising its existence, would no
longer answer; the press must be employed against it. In
September, 1826, the Book Concern, with Bangs and Emory as
agents, issued as a weekly periodical the Christian Advocate.
Thenceforward it actively antagonized the innovators. Its
weekly issue gave it a great advantage over the monthly appear-
ance of the Mutual Mights. It is opportune now to observe that
the reply of the General Conference of 1824 to the Reform peti-
tions was directed against those who claimed " rights and privi-
leges " ; those who petitioned as believers in expediency are
unnoticed. Through the year 1825 the Baltimore Reformers be-
came conscious of a defection to their cause; it was evident that
some parties supposed to be of them were sapping and mining
in the dark, but it seemed impossible to fix the responsibility,
though the suspects were marked and watched. The Mutual
Hights for 1826 was opened by a forceful review of the situation
by "Bartimeus," who in a postscript now gives his proper name
under date, "Pittsburgh, June 26, 1826, Asa Shinn," alleging
his authorship of all under the pseudonym, with the motive con-
fessed " that those who are disposed to punish may be at no loss
to know where to strike, as well as to comply with the request
of friends." It was an exhibition, not of Spartan, but of Chris-
tian courage. He felt that it would result in the loss of the
friendship of many old associates, but longer concealment "would

ASA SHINN'S MASTERFUL SUMMATION 95

be in effect to demand surrender of his understanding, his con-
science, and his Bible. He is entirely persuaded that he could
not pay such a price for human friendship, without losing the
friendship of God ; and that the confidence which cannot be re-
tained but by such a sacrifice, is really not worth retaining."
He sums up the situation for all his brethren : " We did expect
that the preachers and people in general would give us a fair
hearing; this expectation is at an end. We did expect that our
brethren in the ministry would either yield to our arguments or
calmly try to show us that they are inconclusive; this expectation
is at an end. We did expect they would feel their obligation to
act as fairly and conscientiously in their church capacity as in
their individual capacity; this is also at an end. Therefore we
do expect punishment, in some form or other . . . every man
among us may prepare himself either to give up the cause of
reform, or to suffer in one form or other. Those who consider it
not worth suffering for, will of course give it up ; but those who
understand its value and importance will hold to truth and con-
science at every hazard. . . . We are constrained reluctantly to
expect that there will be a division. Is it possible for this to be
prevented? If impossible, it is irrational to use efforts to pre-
vent it; because we have no control over necessity. But if it be
possible, how is it to be done? Why, it is possible for men to give
up the truth; but would this be right? It is possible for men to
give up their reason and their Bible; would this be right? It is
possible for men to give up their duty, their liberty, and their
standing as accountable agents in God's creation; would this be
right? If not, in what conceivable way can a division be pre-
vented, but for men to give evidence a fair hearing, and give up
their bigotry and their delusions? If men will not do it, this
corrupt and obstinate will is the only thing that makes a united
reformation impossible, and He who requireth truth in the inward
parts will judge who and what is the responsible cause of the
melancholy schism." The facts will presently show that never
was human vaticination more literally fulfilled. Shinn, next to
Snethen, was the seer, sage, and philosopher of Reform. Their
strongest opponents, like Dr. Bond, while freely lampooning and
traducing Snethen and others, let this pure and masterful spirit
severely alone. Nay, he wrung from Dr. Bond in 1844, when he
was busy stigmatizing and scandalizing the Southern brethren,
this handsome tribute, " Here is a man incapable of guile or a
sinister purpose. A sterling and uncompromising integrity is

96 HISTOBY OF METHODIST BEFOBM

the prominent ingredient in his character." 1 True, he used Shinn
in this as a foil to his attacks upon others, and as a personal
tribute it is equalled only by another from his pen covering all
the leading Reformers : " They were men whose very errors chal-
lenged the admiration of the world." 2 Unfortunately for the
intrinsic value of such eulogies, he was the most inconsistent of
men ; for the same pen wrote in June, 1855, during his last edi-
torial term of the New York Christian Advocate, "They [the
Keformers] were expelled, and the act was a high and holy vin-
dication of the Methodist Episcopal Church; " but it was in criti-
cism of liberal views of them as expressed by Abel Stevens at
the time.

In the spring of 1826 there was a "bishops' meeting," as
ordered by the General Conference, in Baltimore, the ostensible
business of which was to appoint a fraternal delegate to the
Wesleyan Conference. It adjourned to Philadelphia so as to
secure the attendance of Bishop George, whose relations with
Bishop M'Kendree were now and for some years so strained that
they did not voluntarily meet each other. Another was held,
with all present, early in 1827, but as already found they utterly
disagreed on the delegate question, a majority being for William
Capers of the South and a minority for Wilbur Eisk of the North.
Of course a division of the Episcopal work as set by the General
Conference of 1824 was a part of their- proceedings, and as these
meetings quadrated with the severe measures instituted against
the Keformers, it was their firm persuasion that, while perhaps
not officially passed upon as a minute record, it was understood
that " expulsion of Reform out of the Church " should be recog-
nized in the Eldership as a last resort — " power shrinks from
the test of logic." It has passed into a maxim that force is the
last argument of kings. It is seen to be the last argument of
bishops also. This mention is called for inasmuch as it will be
shortly seen that any direct sanction of the bishops was stoutly
denied by the strategic Bond and others. It was held that the
action against the Keformers was a laymen's action to " defecate "
the Church — this and nothing more.

"One of the Laity," John E. Watson of Philadelphia, was
allowed space, as he argued the question and kept within decorous
bounds as to personalities against the Keformers, through the
third volume of the Mutual Rights. He wrote with ability.
Again wonder can but be expressed that the Reform periodical

1 New York Christian Advocate. 3 Ibid.

"MUTUAL BIGHTS" OPEN TO ANTI-REFORMERS 97

should thus occupy its pages. Two things, however, were in
view : a demonstration that it was a free press, and the recrea-
tion it gave Snethen, Shinn, Jennings, Gideon Davis, McCaine,
W. W. Hill, and others. They thus drew the fire of their oppo-
nents, and then turned in and spiked their guns. The product,
on either side, was volumes of able controversial literature. It
is all accessible to the candid reader, and nothing would be more
in harmony with the confidence of the writer than to have his
statements of fact or conclusion challenged by an appeal to the
records. A letter from Alabama, May 19, 1826, in the periodical
says : " I was personally acquainted with Bishop Asbury. I have
heard him converse with the Rev. Hope Hull, who was a friend
to reform." The writer says he has a son and a son-in-law in
the Mississippi Conference. He sends cheer in money and new
subscribers, and adds, "My name is Joseph "Walker ; my place
of residence is Dallas County, State of Alabama." He was a
type of the laymen who were not to be intimidated by threats
nor cajoled by flattery.

The third volume contains the full proceedings of the Mary-
land and District of Columbia Convention of Eeformers pre-
liminary to the General Convention. It was held on the 15th
and 16th of November, 1826, in what was then the English
Lutheran church, on Lexington Street, west of Paca,1 the use of
the city Methodist Episcopal churches having been denied them
by the trustees, though they were all members in good standing.
Nicholas Snethen was called to the chair and Gideon Davis
appointed Secretary. Snethen preached a preparatory sermon,
which may be found in the periodical. The doors were opened
to spectators during the sessions. Twenty-three delegates were
appointed to the General Convention, and the names are in evi-
dence of the high character of the men, whether itinerants or
local preachers or laymen. The proceedings were also published
in the three city secular papers. The 15th of November, 1827,
was named as the time, and Baltimore as the place, for the
General Convention of Reformers. It was a large and united
meeting. Henry B. Bascom now entered the lists, stating in his
prefatory paper : " Hitherto I have been silent for the sake of
peace, but 'the time past must suffice.' In future I shall speak
for conscience' sake and from principle." He was now stationed
at Uniontown, Pa., in the Pittsburgh District, and was thirty
years of age, having been fourteen in the itinerant ministry. He

1 Now a colored Methodist church.

VOL. II — II

98 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

was the rising sun of the denomination. George Brown of the
Pittsburgh Conference now also became active as a writer for
Reform under the incognito "Timothy," in an address to the
"Junior Bishop, Hedding." It was in scathing but good-tem-
pered review of the Bishop's address to the Pittsburgh Conference
recently held in that city during which he advised against the
Reformers and their periodical as agitating the Church for a
cause not having one in twenty favoring it. He advised both
preachers and members to defer agitation until the General Con-
ference, as that was the only proper place for such a discussion.
His purpose was held to be to silence investigation, and the effect
was to stimulate Reform in the West, inasmuch as the policy
suggested to its advocates meant surrender and subjection.
Shinn's masterful paper, already referred to as opening this
volume, was printed as " an extra sheet " and widely circulated.
He comes to its defence in two numbers of the periodical, and
with his incisive logic drives his critics to the wall of defeat,
making, among many strong points, the following excusatory of
the Union Societies : " If to this end they deem it expedient to
form themselves into 'Union Societies,' it is presumed they have
as good a right to do so as ever Mr. Wesley had to form societies
in the Church of England and call them 'The United Societies.'
These united or union societies were multiplied, the members of
which continued to be regular members of the Church of England
during the whole of Mr. Wesley's lifetime." No one ever
attempted to answer this parallel — it was unanswerable. Happy
had it been if the Methodist Episcopal Church of America had
been as Avise in its generation as was the Church of England.
Shinn adds: "A great outcry was raised against him and his
united societies, and some, as in modern times, urged them to
leave the Church. To whom he replied: 'As to your last advice,
to renounce communion with the Church, I dare not. Nay, but
let them thrust us out. We will not leave the ship ; if you cast
us out of it, then our Lord will take us up. ' " 1

Rumors now became rife that proscription and expulsion would
soon be resorted to, and the Reformers prepared themselves for
the worst. January, 1827, H. B. Bascom, as "Dissenter," again
returns to the succor and dealt sledge-hammer blows. Referring
to the Episcopal Address at Pittsburgh, of which he was an ear-
witness, he says: "The effect that has followed the defection of
three or four half-hearted reformers in different sections of our

1 " Wesley's Works."

SHINN AND BASCOM ON THE SITUATION 99

country; men who publicly and privately committed themselves
to the interests of reform, and then for the sake of a place, as it
would seem, cowered down most civilly at the feet of episcopal
patronage. . . . Eeform is now what it was then. If their
change has been the result of honest conviction, why not let us
know the powerful reasons which produced that conviction? . . .
Let them [the Eeformers] remain in the Church till they be cast
out or compelled to leave it ; an event at present not to be strongly
looked for; but should it occur, we shall then, in the order of
providence, be under the necessity of resting our cause and
appeal with men and churches better informed, and God the
judge of all." These citations call for two observations: he did
not believe with many leading Eeformers that the authorities
would resort to expulsion of its members for opinions' sake, for
this is the last and only analysis of it posterity will ever allow,
despite the perversions and allegations of the prosecutors. Yet
the facts will show that he was treading on the very heels of sys-
tematic, frequent, and numerous expulsions for being members
of the Union Societies and supporting the Mutual Bights, for to
this complexion it will come at last. Again, he did not see the
Hamiltonian maxim already twice recorded, that power over a
man's substance is power over his will. Like his father, he
was no economist; both were embarrassed with debt, and at the
father's death in 1833 his step-mother and a large family came
upon him for support. He wrestled with it manfully, and the
Church authorities, in view of his abilities and adaptability, ten-
dered him the presidency of Madison College in 1827, but in a
year or more he was deeper than ever in debt. Lie was elected
chaplain to Congress, and at the end of his term accepted the
agency of the American Colonization Society, and in 1832 a pro-
fessorship in Augusta College, Georgia, where he remained some
years. As will be made parent, debt compelled him after 1832
to surcease active advocacy of Eeform, but, as will also be proved,
he never abandoned or repudiated the principles of Eeform.
Had he foreseen how the Church's power over his substance
would paralyze his will and hold him under its patronage, he
would have been more charitable to others who silently subsided,
bowed their heads, and allowed the storm of persecution in 1827-30
to pass over them. This writer would be untrue to his better
instincts if he did not sympathize with the large number of
itinerants specially who heeded the cry of wife and children, and
who accepted bread at the price of silence; but he would be

100 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

equally untrue to his better instincts if he extenuated the conduct
of those in any relation who denied their affiliations, and used
tongue and pen and official position against their former associates
in Keform. Treachery can never be condoned in any cause.
One witness must be introduced, one of Bascom's most intimate
friends, and the author of his biography, himself a pervert from
the Methodist Protestant Church, evidential of the position that
Bascom never abandoned or repudiated the principles of Eeform.
" It is believed that he was never known to utter a word unfriendly
to the Methodist Protestant Church, nor to do any act that could
prejudice her interests or reputation. ... In a period of thirty
years he changed some of his opinions respecting things non-
essential; and he who has read and thought for thirty years,
without changing any of his opinions, has had none of his own
to change." 1 Ere the third volume of the Mutual Bights closed,
in which Bascom figured conspicuously, events of the gravest
moment occurred in Baltimore, to which a new chapter will be
devoted.

1 " Life of Bascom," by Rev. Moses M. Henkle. Louisville, 1854. 12mo. 408
pp. Citation from p. 383.

CHAPTER VI

Agitation superinduced by the Reform Convention of 1826 — More Union Societies
formed out of the cream of the Church ; examples — Bascom again in the front
— Baltimore a camp of spies; principle against power; the battle set — The
case of Rev. Dennis B. Dorsey, suspended and then expelled the Baltimore
Conference for reading and circulating the Mutual Rights ; full particulars of
the whole matter — Effect of it on Reformers various ; Shinn and Snethen on
the case; Bascom aroused by it — Rev. George Brown and Bishop Hedding —
McCaine determines to investigate the foundations of the old Church ; remark-
able discoveries as to the surreptitious nature of its Episcopacy — It raised a
new issue ; thoughtful Reformers hesitated as to the publication of the " History
and Mystery " — Dr. Bond's Appeal to the Methodists ; a review of it ; " purse-
string " argument — Dr. Bond's amazing conceit exhibited.

The publication of the proceedings of the Maryland Reform
Convention in the public city press, with the reasons for their
action, led to a counter publication of local preachers, stewards,
and trustees of Baltimore city station in review. This in turn
was answered by Asa Shinn under his own name in " An Appeal
to the Good Sense of the Citizens of the United States," in which
he exhaustively covers the whole ground of controversy. The
conceded fact that Reform had permeated almost the entire mem-
bership in Baltimore was a fact no longer. Dr. Bond became an
active though concealed opponent. His personal influence was
controlling with not a few, while the bitterness of the conten-
tion, mistakes of judgment, and ill-advised words of certain in-
discreet Reformers prejudiced their own cause ; the timid yielded,
and the love of the " old church mother " with more was decisive,
not of argument, but of their position. Laymen who had been
neutral could be neutral no longer. To show your colors was a
demand on both sides. There were laymen enough who were
stanch adherents of the doctrine, "Let well enough alone," of
whom Christian Keener was a pure and distinguished example,
to make a considerable party and give to Dr. Bond the cue, which
he adroitly employed, that it was a laymen's uprising to " defe-
cate" the Church of a disorderly lay-element; the Episcopacy and
its lieutenants, the elders, had not impaired their dignity by any
condescending notice of the " disaffected spirits." The lines were

101

102 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

more closely drawn than ever. More Union Societies were organ-
ized. A strong one was formed in Frederick County, Md., with
Jonathan Forrest, the old Itinerant of heroic service now retired,
as President, and Dr. Henry Baker, Secretary, Nicholas Snethen,
Corresponding Secretary. Another was organized in Baltimore
for the Fell's Point brethren. It was precipitated by an effort of
the preacher in charge to change the character of this eastern
station for more effective control of the property, but was defeated
by the bold, righteous stand of the membership by a vote of forty-
nine to twenty. He retired from the meeting with the declara-
tion, " You may go home rejoicing in your victory over Methodism
and Methodist discipline, and your triumph over me ! but I give
you notice that I will leave you without trustees; for there is no
law to compel me to nominate according to the charter. I will
leave the station as it is with only three trustees." Far up in
Vermont, under date May 17, 1827, a society was organized, one
of Shinn's " extra sheets " having found its way there, and was
made the basis of the organization, as their first information of
Eeform. This nearly three years after the first " Union " was
formed in Maryland, and in evidence how persistently and suc-
cessfully in the main the Itinerants were, by silence themselves
and suppression of news, in keeping the Church in ignorance of
the new movement, and then to twit the Reformers with their
paucity of numbers compared with the whole, and the indiffer-
ence or opposition of the "people " to any changes. Another was
organized in Uniontown, Pa., where Bascom was stationed. A
large meeting of local preachers and members was convened in
Pittsburgh, March 30, 1827, preliminary to a general call for a
Convention of Reform Methodists, which was held May 23 en-
suing, in the Methodist Church, the charter here being also of
such a character that the small opposing element with the
preacher in charge did not dare to interfere. Charles Avery,
local preacher, was made Chairman, and Henry Ebert, Secretary,
while the delegates from all the circumjacent country were repre-
sentative business and Church men in their homes, among them
Dr. H. D. Sellers, John Emory's brother-in-law, who had recently
removed to Pittsburgh from Centre ville, Md., where, as found,
he was an active Reformer. Their resolves were courteous but
decisive. At Steubenville, O., a strong society was formed.
Cincinnati was a hive of Reformers, and shall soon be promi-
nently noticed. As far south as Alabama " Unions " were or-
ganized, while the growth in North Carolina and Virginia was

BASCOM IN THE FRONT — A CBISIS 103

phenomenal. Conspicuously the society in Centreville, Md.,
needs mention. It was organized not until June 4, 1827, the
"suspension" of Rev. Dennis B. Dorsey of the Baltimore Confer-
ence the previous April being the inciting cause, though the move-
ment had many strong adherents long before. Its list of officers
covers the salt of the Church and the social influence of the com-
munity: President, Dr. John D. Emory; Vice-Presidents, Bev.
W. T. Ringgold and John M'Feely; Secretary, Thomas C. Brown;
Treasurer, William Harper, Jr. ; Corresponding Committee, Hon.
P. B. Hopper, Dr. John D. Emory, John W. Bordley, Thomas
C. Brown, and W. H. Bordley. Bev. Thomas Beed closed the
meeting with prayer. They all united in sending delegates
to the General Convention called for Baltimore, November 15,
1827.

Among the last contributors to Vol. III., Mutual Rights, was
"Anti-Vulcan," Bev. James Sewell, the eccentric but effective
preacher of the Baltimore Conference. His paper was "Ten
Links of an Iron Chain," an allegory showing the growth of the
hierarchy. It was his first and last appearance. Like many
others, when the storm broke he fled to cover, not a few declar-
ing with white-faced perfidy with Peter, " I know not the man ! "
Bascom, as "Dissenter" or "Presbyter" or "ISTeale," continued
his bugle-blasts through the periodical. One clear note sent its
echoes through the ranks of Reform : " If the time has arrived
when a man cannot express his opinions as to the scriptural
character and relative legitimacy of our mode of church govern-
ment, without subjecting himself to ecclesiastical censure and
anathema, as exemplified in the proceedings of the late Virginia
Conference, then in this case I think the sooner we arrived at a
crisis the better; the world ought to know, and heaven and earth
record, that the Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States
is to be governed by human authority, and not by moral evidence
as found in the Bible and other kindred sources of accredited
information." The crisis was at hand. The whisper had already
gone forth from the Episcopacy : Beform must be expelled out of
the Church. Thus God-fearing men were arraigned against God-
fearing men, but the blind prejudice of devotion to the old regime,
right or wrong, on the one part, and the fever-heat of determined
purpose not to secede but to compel concessions, on the other
part, called these forces to confront each other. The manoeuvring
between them was worthy of trained strategists. The Church in
Baltimore was a camp of spies. They met in public worship,

104 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

joined in the social means of grace, wept and prayed together,
then went out to plot and counter-plot; the one section verily
believing that for laymen to participate in church government
meant the destruction of the Episcopacy, an end to the Itinerancy
and of the Methodist religion. How strange the delusion seems
to-day. The other section as verily believed that right and duty,
conscience and honor, demanded that they should stand by each
other, and push their reconstructive plan as in the best interests
of the Church they so much loved. It was a banter of Principle
against Power.

In 1821 the Baltimore Conference received on trial a young
man, tall, erect, but slender and of feeble health. His name was
Dennis B. Dorsey. His mind was logical and metaphysical, and
he was a close student. He advanced by regular steps to ordina-
tion as an elder ; he married, and in 1826 was on Harford circuit,
with a youth, William C. Pool, as an associate. The Reform
literature of the times came under his notice. He read and
approved, and quietly recommended it to others. He was modest
and did not write publicly, but deep convictions of the rightful-
ness of the cause held him in thrall. He says : " I wrote a few
lines to a friend, Mr. Hugh M. Sharp [the writer gives the name
that perfidy may be associated with it as it goes down to pos-
terity], in which I gave him information of 'a work on church
government, published in Baltimore, by a committee of Methodist
preachers and members, exposing to open view some of the errors
of our government and administration.' I also informed him
that the 'work was a very satisfactory one, well worth his atten-
tion ' ; that I had ' taken it more than eighteen months, and was
well pleased with it ' ; that it contained so many pages, and came
at so much per year; that several in that part (Huntington cir-
cuit, Pa.) took it, and were well pleased with it; and, finally,
requested him to let me know immediately, if he desired to have
the work, and to inquire of a brother, whom I named, whether
he would take it also. In conclusion I remarked to him, 'you
need not mention this to any other person, if you please.' But
when Robert Minshell, the circuit preacher, came round, my
friend Sharp betrayed me, by giving him my letter to read. Mr.
Minshell then, according to his own telling in Conference, asked
him for a copy of the letter, to which he replied that he might
have the original, as it was of no use to him." Minshell, it
appears, wrote to David Steele, and lie communicated with John
Davis, now stationed in Baltimore, who reported it further,

DENNIS B. DORSEY

First Reform martyr of 1827 for lay rights and
liberty of speech.

D. B. DORSET'S TRIAL AND EXPULSION 105

"until, finally, it was brought before the Annual Conference,
first in the form of an objection, and then as a charge."

The Conference of April 12, 1827, was held in the Eutaw Street
church. The writer recently stood within the now ancient build-
ing, its interior but little disturbed, the great sweep of galleries,
the pews, the chancel, if not the pulpit, as of old. Imagination
peopled the place with the Conference in session. The bishops
present were M'Kendree, Soule, George, and Eoberts, the last
three mostly presiding, relieving the now feeble M'Kendree.
The presiding elders were Joseph Try, Stephen G. Eoszel, Gerard
Morgan, Marmaduke Pierce, and John Baer. There were present
such men as Waugh, Slicer, John Davis, Bryson, Norval Wilson,
Eyland, Guest, James M. Hanson, Gere, Alfred Griffith, James
Sewell, and others ; but these are remembered as participants in
Eeform, for or against, and with a number, both for and against
as the wind blew. Expectation was in the air so that there was
a full attendance, though the galleries were empty and on the
floor only members of the Conference, for Methodist preachers
did not yet assemble with open doors. The examination of offi-
cial character is in progress. Bishop Soule calls the name of
Dennis B. Dorsey. The tall, erect, slender young man, now pale
from recent severe illness, quietly arose from the rear of the
audience room and faced the Chair. The Bishop said, "Is there
anything against his character?" Stephen G. Eoszel stated that
" Brother Dorsey had been away from his circuit during the year,
under the pretence of being afflicted, but had been travelling ex-
tensively, circulating a work derogatory to the interests of the
Church." Messrs. Steele and Minshell were referred to as wit-
nesses. The latter read Dorsey's letter to brother Sharp, relating
the circumstances. The Bishop said that if he had anything to
say in reply he was now at liberty to speak. " As I saw no formal
charge, I had nothing to say, only to acknowledge the letter read
to be my own production. I then retired, and, after consider-
able deliberation on the subject, the case was decided." The
next morning, when the Journal was read, Dorsey learned that
a formal charge had been recorded, which was, "for having actively
engaged in the circulation of an improper periodical work. The
president then announced that the decision of the Conference in
my case was 'that my character pass, upon my being admonished
by the president, and promising the Conference that I would
desist from taking any agency in spreading or supporting any
publication in opposition to our discipline or government.' The

106 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

admonition was then given from the chair, after I had signified
my disposition to submit to it, for the sake of brethrens' con-
science. I was then required to give a pledge that I would
comply with the latter part of the resolution; which I refused to
do, while the resolution remained in its unqualified form. I then
replied to all the important items of the admonition, and gave
my reasons for not complying with the latter part of the resolu-
tion." The substance of this answer he has preserved in his full
statement of the case made to " Vindex," Henry B. Bascom, who
solicited the information after he heard of the trial. It may be
found in the Mutual Bights, Vol. III. It shows how the bishops,
the preachers, and the book agents read it, exchanging it with
the Methodist Magazine, and therefore the members should be
allowed to read it.

The paragraph, however, which perhaps was the ground of a
final charge of "contumacy," is the following: "I have read the
Mutual Bights, sir, for myself, and think highly of the work, and
recommend it to every member of this Conference." The Con-
ference refused to pass his character on this answer, and the case
was postponed to the next day ; those in charge of the prosecution
evidently halted in their purpose on such evidence. The next
day Dorsey again made answer, in which he specially demanded
the " rule of discipline " under which he was being tried. This
the presiding Bishop evaded by stating that the Annual Con-
ference had authority to make rules and regulations for its own
members. But it was parried at once, though unfounded in fact,
that " in such case the Conference must be acting in its legislative
character," and if so, how could the same body at the same time
both act as legislative and executive, clinching it with the corol-
lary ; " Unless you prove that these two powers should be united
in one body; which would astonish my understanding, and form
a monstrous anomaly in ecclesiastical government, in this coun-
try." He closed by asking again that the rule of discipline
should be produced. He retired. Roszel softened, and moved
that " his character pass on his being reproved by the president
for his contumacy in resisting the authority of the Conference."
But the body was now in no mood for concession. Job Guest
then moved " that the bishops be and are hereby requested not
to give Dennis B. Dorsey an appointment for the present year,
and that his name be so returned on the minutes, with the reason
assigned why he has not an appointment; viz., his contumacy in
regard to the authority of the Conference." It prevailed, and at

RESULTS OF DORSEY' S PERSECUTION 107

once Dorsey requested "a copy of the proceedings." It was laid
over to the next day. Meantime the prosecutors were more em-
barrassed than ever. Joshua Wells moved that " his contumacy
in regard to the Conference be retained on the Journal but not
published in the minutes." This was carried. The proceedings
of an Inquisition are not proper for the public, whether Eomish
or Methodist. The next day Dorsey, not being able to be present
through illness, wrote the Conference that he should appeal to
the General Conference and requesting that this purpose be
entered upon the minutes. They had another perplexing delib-
eration over granting his request for a copy of the proceedings;
"the secretary, Mr. Waugh, and others, made some remarks on
the impropriety of my obtaining such a document, without some
restraint not to publish it until the General Conference." Fi-
nally Stephen G.Roszel, who either had more sense or more charity
than the other prosecutors, moved that "his request be granted."
What was feared was the ripening public sentiment of the city
and elsewhere in sympathy with the Reformers personally and
their principles. It was quite general in all the non-hierarchal
denominations. Realizing it as an adverse force, the anti-
reformers said it was due to the "jealousy" other Christians
entertained of the success of the Methodists. Thus a young
preacher in feeble health, with a family, was thrown upon his
own resources of personal poverty for a support for circulating
the Mutual Bights, and for contumacy in declining to criminate
himself under examination before the Conference. That this
correctly states the case is evident from the fact that Bishop
Roberts dissented to the proceedings largely, having afterward
stated to one of the editorial Committee of the Mutual Rights
that he was not an enemy of free inquiry, remarking, "If our
discipline and government will not bear the test of examination,
let them go down." It will save space and avoid a reference to
a vast mass of excusatory twaddle to establish this fact beyond
dispute, that the proscription was against free inquiry and a free
press.

Two opposite effects were wrought by this prosecution of
Dorsey. The time-serving, the irresolute, the dependent, the
discouraged among the itinerants were silenced ; while the man-
ful, the heroic, the steel-true, and unabashed nailed their colors
to the masthead ; and not a few who had been hesitating as to
open committal, such as Bascom, hesitated no longer. The action
of the Conference was not a surprise to Shinn ; the time for pun-

108 HISTORY OF METHODIST BEFOBM

ishment of Eeformers, as he predicted, had come; but to more
hopeful men, like Snethen, it was a sad surprise. Peaceful,
Christian measures of adjustment were at an end. The Union
Society of Baltimore, and many elsewhere, entered protest against
the proceedings, but accepted the issue thus joined : " Not only
to withhold representation from the membership and local min-
istry, but also to keep them in ignorance of the true principles
of church government. . . . The society deem it but just to say,
that several members of the Conference, together with Bishop
Roberts, manifested a liberal spirit on the occasion." Shinn
addressed a paper to the Conference reviewing at length the
situation, accentuated with interrogations which must have cut
to the quick certain ex-Reformers : " I retain a lively recollection
of the times and seasons when an Emory, a By land, and a Griffith
made a noble stand on your floor; and when other intelligent
brethren with them plead the cause of liberty against the dan-
gerous accumulations of ecclesiastical power. Whence is it then
that in your last session, you laid an embargo upon the Mutual
Bights ? Is Emory gone from among you? Is the voice of Ryland
no more heard? Has Griffith retired to the mournful solitudes
of discouraged silence? Does modest Hanson still refuse to open
his mouth? And have Waugh and Davis found out that truth
reaches too deep to be safely followed in all its connections?
Does the thunder of S. G. R. [Roszel] still terrify the rising
ministry? And have your young men 'stipulated' to enjoy the
consolations of passive obedience and non-resistance? Whence
is it that these dismal tidings have come to us from Baltimore?"
As already hinted, in his youth Shinn had been struck by a horse-
shoe upon the head, and some years after suffered temporary
mental derangement therefrom; now it was whispered that he
was crazy. He meets it at the close of this masterful address :
" Bartimeus thinks it best to meet this friendly and sympathizing
suggestion with a smile, and to wait patiently until some admirers
of episcopacy will condescend to answer his crazy arguments."
It is evident that Shinn could not see the fine distinction after-
ward raised by Emory and a few others, that their Reform senti-
ments never went farther than an elective eldership; one cannot
but sympathize with the filial attempt of Robert Emory to exon-
erate his venerated father, but truth and posterity will not heed
the appeal.

Shinn was now in the thickest of the fray. June, 1827, he
meets the charge that " Reformers are endeavoring to expose our

SHINN, SNETHEN, AND BASCOM BOUSED 109

church to contempt," and in a "P.S." thus pulverizes the inno-
cents who were so pure in speech and so charitable in temper
that longer association with Eeformers could not be tolerated:
" Do those brethren who seem so much concerned for the preser-
vation of a Christian spirit, think it altogether Christian for our
opponents confidently to assert that we are 'backsliders,' that
the spirit of our writings 'originated in hell,' and then proceed
to suspend the reforming ministers and expel private members
from the Church? Must we receive all this, as a perfectly gracious
and Christian spirit in our old side friends, and not presume to
speak to them, except it be done with all possible softness and
submissiveness?" Snethen met the issue May, 1827, in "An
Address to the Friends of Keform." He traversed the selection
of Dorsey as the victim, the ministerial protomartyr of Reform,
who was only a reader of the Mutual Rights, and sought to make
other readers, while the writers were untouched by the rod. He
says, " It is doubtful if a single travelling preacher has written
for the Wesleyan Repository or the Mutual Rights who was not
known to his superiors." The only explanation that will stand
investigation is that the suspension of Dorsey was a tentative
effort; they knew the proscription was for opinions' sake, only,
and they feared to touch the leaders ; they thought an example
would precipitate a secession, — an act most devoutly now wished
by them, as it would save them from the odium of further expul-
sions in violation of Christian sentiment everywhere. Snethen
further urged: "The truth is, brethren, that there is the very
essence of persecution in this act of the Baltimore Conference,
... we are not to be reasoned with, but punished ; . . . your turn,
my turn, may come next. ... It is an awful thing to be driven
by the power of a majority from the last asylum of harmlessness ;
to be reduced to the dreadful alternative of dissimulation or bear-
ing witness against one's self. ... It will, I know it will, it
must be asked, where is Snethen? I trust while he is among the
living but one answer will be given to this question : he is at his
post, he is on the front of the contest, he is shouting, On, brethren,
on! and if he fall, it will be with a wound in his breast, and his
head direct towards his opponent. . . . But I call upon you by
every sacred name to resist this inquisitorial power, this attempt
to renew in America the old, the exploded principle of torture,
this monstrous outrage upon the principles of civil and religious
liberty: the punishing of men for not submitting to criminate
themselves. Oh, defend to the last extremity this final sanctuary

110 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

of oppressed innocence. . . . The fiery trial has come upon one
who is as the shadow of a man, a walking skeleton, and I yet go
free ! . . . Lord, let the young man live and not die ! Let not
the wife of his youth be a premature widow. I cannot now desert
the cause and be innocent before God or man." Never before
had he written with such an incisive pen; he was dumfounded
at the audacity of the prosecutors. He could have exclaimed : —

" Can such things be and overcome us like
A summer cloud without our special wonder ? "

When Bascom received tidings of the method of Dorsey's sus-
pension, he was warmly indignant, and made answer through the
Mutual Eights, April 27, 1827, in hot, blistering words, after-
ward quoted as part of the allegations against " readers " of the
periodical. He denounced the action as "an overbearing act of
abandoned tyranny. ... I cannot refrain from asking where
three or four members of the Baltimore Conference were during
this labored deed of hard-earned infamy? Did they sit by in
inglorious silence? . . . On hearing of the treatment you and
others received at the Baltimore Conference ten or twelve persons
of my charge have declared for reform, and are ready to aid you
with their influence and purses." Signed with what became his
favorite anonymous, "Vindex." June 1, 1827, he submitted for
publication, under the pseudonym of "Keale," "Seasons in Plea
for Reform," etc., covering seven pages of the periodical. It is
a review of the organization of the Church, in which the facts
already exhaustively explored in this work are marshalled in a
most convincing manner. Two brief extracts must suffice: " We
have the Bible on our side; the practice of the primitive church
sustains us; public opinion is our friend and ally; the civil
institutions of our country lend us aid, and the genius of American
freedom throws her protecting shadow over every friend of equal
representation and mutual rights." In conclusion: "We resist
only when we are oppressed ; as members of the great family of
our common father, we ask to be treated as his children, and we
shall continue to ask; if tauntingly requested by 'the powers that
be ' to leave the church, we reply, if you wish a division, separate
yourselves ; if required to lay down our arms (they are those of
reason and scripture), we say to our rulers, 'come and take them.' "

After the appearance of " Timothy " to the " Junior Bishop "
in the Mutual Rights, the official addressed, Bishop Hedding, sent
a note to the Chairman of the editorial Committee, requesting

McCAINE INVESTIGATES EPISCOPACY 111

the proper name of Timothy as well as the names of the Com-
mittee, charging that Timothy had made "a misrepresentation
throughout of an address I made at the Pittsburgh Conference,
and a vile slander on my character." It led to a correspondence
with him; and the free consent that his name, Rev. George Brown,
should be furnished, the whole of the interchange being published
in the periodical, as well as a number of affidavits from other
preachers of the Pittsburgh Conference, deposing that Timothy's
recollections of the Address were substantially correct, and could
never be made a "misrepresentation " or a "vile slander." With
the statement of this case all that is essential of Volume III. has
been furnished. It closed with the July number, 1827.

The Christian Advocate had now a circulation of from fifteen to
twenty thousand, and was the vehicle of articles editorial and
communicated against the Reform movement. The Mutual
Eights had a circulation of from fifteen hundred to two thou-
sand, and while a number of its subscribers took the Advo-
cate, but few of the latter took the Mutual Rights. It was a
great disadvantage, and inaugurated a period of pamphleteering
on both sides for wider dissemination of the views of either.
In the winter of 1825 Alexander McCaine, having become inter-
ested in the Reform proceedings, specially as his attention was
directed to the answer of the previous General Conference to the
petitions, determined to investigate the foundation of the claim
of the Itinerants, of which he had been one of the most conspicu-
ous for thirty years, to exclusive government under an Episcopal
rigime derived directly from Mr. Wesley as embodied in the
Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church. It resulted in
the publication, in May, 1827, of a pamphlet of seventy-two
pages octavo. Up to this period he was of the traditional opin-
ion that in said organization the superintendents, Coke and
Asbury, and the preachers summoned to the Christmas Confer-
ence, had followed specific instructions of Mr. Wesley. He
tells in the Preface that " he was resolved, if possible, to ascer-
tain the means by which the travelling preachers had arrived at
these pretensions, and find the authority which Mr. Wesley had
given to justify them in saying he 'recommended the episcopal
mode of church government.' When lo! the first discovery he
made was that whilst Mr. Wesley, the testator, was yet living,
the title of bishop was assumed, and the episcopal mode of gov-
ernment adopted without his recommendation; and more, that
his most solemn remonstrance and entreaty did not avail in caus-

112 HISTOBY OF METHODIST REFORM

ing them to relinquish the one or change the other. Still pur-
suing the investigation, he found that a more extended research
served only to increase his conviction that claims had been set
up for which there was no warrant; and authority was said to
have been given which he believes can nowhere be found." This
states the whole case of his " History and Mystery of the Metho-
dist Episcopacy, etc.," x and, as will be seen later, it stands to-day,
as then, fully vindicated as the truth of history.

He read the results of his investigation before the Baltimore
Union Society. The discoveries were so compromising to the
leaders of 1784, and the facts so indisputable; the entirely new
issue it would inject into the lay-representation measure upon
which the Eeformers were now concentrating; its explosion of
the received tradition that Wesley had authorized the call of the
General Conference of 1784, and had sent over " a sketch of gov-
ernment," which was precisely followed in the organization of
the Church; the certainty of the intense excitement it would
create on new lines of controversy, and the ground it would fur-
nish for judicial proceedings, justly or unjustly against Eeform-
ers, — gave the Society pause, so that it took no official action as
to its publication; but individuals urged McCaine to give it to
the press. He was deterred, however, long enough to address a
letter of inquiry to Bishop M'Kendree and his four colleagues,
under date July 1, 1826, in which he respectfully asked for
information as to the principal points of his pamphlet in contro-
version, and in it the sentence occurs : " I am forced to believe
that the present form of government was surreptitiously intro-
duced ; and that it was imposed upon the societies under the sanc-
tion of Mr. Wesley's name. I shall suspend the publication of
my piece to allow you a reasonable time to reply." Eeceiving
no answer from any of them, for the simple reason that they
were as ignorant of any such information as McCaine himself,
September 25, 1826, he addressed a similar letter in purport to
six of the oldest preachers then living, all of whom had been
members of the Christmas Conference. They were Garrettson,
Green, Ware, Eeed, Watters, and Dromgoole. From most of

1 " The History and Mystery of the Methodist Episcopacy, or a Glance at the
Institutions of the Church, as we received them from our fathers," by Alexander
McCaine, Elder in the Methodist Episcopal Church. "He who has no right to
the thing he possesses cannot prescribe or plead any length of time to make his
possession lawful." Barrow. Baltimore. Printed by Richard J. Matehett, 1S.J7.
8vo. 72 pp. Only one edition was ever published, and while a number of conies
are in the author's possession it is now a rare pamphlet.

mccaine's "HISTORY and mystery" 113

these he received answers, and they agreed that to the best of
their knowledge they acted under Wesley's instructions, thus
confirming McCaine's theory that the system of government they
enacted under this impression received from Dr. Coke, and
acquiesced in by Asbury, was " imposed upon them " ; and they
acted accordingly, never suspecting that they did not possess
Wesley's will and purpose as he delivered them explicitly to Dr.
Coke. The merits of McCaine's pamphlet shall be deferred until
it can be reviewed in juxtaposition with Dr. Emory's " Defence
of our Fathers," which was given to the press about six months
later.

It may be seriously doubted whether McCaine's pamphlet did
anything to further the cause of Reform. Kot a few of the
leaders regarded it as inopportune. It complicated the lay-
representation idea, and its statements, though never successfully
controverted, fell like a firebrand in dry stubble. The pamphlet
in its conclusion says: "In the preceding pages, we have spread
before our readers such documents as were found to be connected
with the origin of our episcopacy. We are sorry that this expos4
will not reflect much credit upon those who were instrumental in
saddling it upon us. We are persuaded that the impartial, intel-
ligent, and pious of other denominations will pronounce our
episcopacy to be illegitimate; and that the means which were
used to introduce it into the Church were neither fair nor honor-
able." For a caustic writer like McCaine this is a temperate
verdict, and in both its chief positions posterity has indorsed it.
The episcopacy of the Methodist Episcopal Church is " illegiti-
mate," in any and every sense the term conveys, as interpreted
by the Roman, the Greek and the English episcopacies. Therefore
the right to the term as an ecclesiastical exponent is anomalous
and accommodational only, and to this complexion the Methodist
Episcopal Church has come, not without determined opposition
from its high church wing, as has been already exposed in these
pages; and to this complexion the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South must ultimately come. " The means which were used to
introduce it into the Church were neither fair nor honorable."
This McCaine demonstrated, and Dr. Emory utterly failed to
invalidate the facts and arguments, as shall be exhibited in order.

It would have been well if McCaine had concluded with this
summation, but instead he ventured to outline a Plan for the
reconstruction of the old Church, in advance of concerted action
by the Reformers. It was radical in its features and adhered to

VOL. II — I

114 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

the equal legislative rights of the local preachers. It was eagerly
seized upon by the opponents of Reform, not as a particular
expression of opinion, but as a general sentiment, and sharply
criticised as impracticable and visionary. Nevertheless, the
chief issues of the pamphlet were so cogently put and so but-
tressed by unquestionable facts and documentary evidence that
it made a profound impression, and won for him the distinction
of being outlawed by his Church. Something must be done to
neutralize it. Subsequent events made it apparent that agree-
ment between Dr. Bond and Dr. Emory parcelled out the defen-
sive work. In a few months Dr. Bond's "Appeal to the
Methodists," etc.,1 made its appearance, and was scattered
broadcast throughout the Church. In a Dedication to it he
scathingly reviews Snethen's strictures upon it, anticipating it
in the rumor that Dr. Bond was to " write down Reform " ; with
a fling at Bascom, who, in one of his articles in the Mutual Rights,
had referred to Dr. Bond " as the chief officer of the star-chamber
to my Lord of Canterbury," alleging that this English court was
exclusively civil in its jurisdiction, and, therefore, the illustra-
tion was impertinent as to ecclesiastical matters. It was unfor-
tunate for Dr. Bond, for Bascom turned upon him with such
indisputable evidence that the star-chamber did take cognizance
of ecclesiastical matters as well, that his competence to handle
historical facts was discounted seriously. The Appeal was writ-
ten in vigorous English, and was of singular merit, in that it
must be credited with all the seed-thoughts and arguments that
have ever since been reproduced apologetic and defensive of the
mother-church polity as it was up to 1872. It is a master mind
that can thus box the whole compass, and anticipate a generation
of thinkers on the same side. Everything is here in embryo
that ever afterward appeared in General Conference reports, or
found expression through the Advocates. And more, there is not
a sophistry, a fallacy, an indirection, a perversion of language,
an appeal to passion and prejudice, that escapes this zealous pur-
veyor of Bourbon conservatism; it is exhaustive of ingenious
turns and tricks of speech. That full justice may be done him
the reader shall have a synopsis of the pamphlet, as the mere
statement of his positions will be self-refuting to the impartial
Christian investigator, and save a detail of the several replies

1 " An Appeal to the Methodists in opposition to the Changes Proposed in their
Church Government," by Thomas E. Bond, M.D., a local preacher of said Church.
Baltimore. Published by Armstrong & Plaskitt, 1827. 8vo. 69 pp.

DB. BOND'S "APPEAL" ANALYZED 115

which at once were launched against it by eminent Reformers,
riddling it into shreds.

A number of opening pages are devoted to a eulogy upon the
early American itinerants and the work they accomplished : ten
preachers and a handful of members in 1773, and now, 1827,
1400 itinerants, over 3000 local preachers, and 300,000 members.
It was a breezy showing, a " common Methodism " about which
there was no dispute, as well as the effectiveness of the missionary
character of the itinerant plan. And now comes his first bare and
bald assumption that this is to give place to " a scheme founded
on abstract notions of natural rights." The scheme is not new,
he says; and, tricked out in blackest garb, O'Kelly is held up
as a warning. He plunges into the propositions and purposes of
the Keformers, and depicts them for the best effect upon his
readers. He takes up the right, the expediency, and the practi-
cability of lay-representation. As to the first, he does not find
in the Scriptures " any form of government for the Christian
church prescribed," carefully avoiding any reference to the
example found in the New Testament, wherein the people are
first in authority and always participants in church polity. He
finds therefore no scriptural right of lay-participation. Neither
can he find a natural right. " The complainants are under no
government but such as they voluntarily put themselves under,
and which they can at any time renounce ; " overlooking with
shrewd purpose the essential difference between a society and a
Church. A man may, and perhaps should, change his relation
to society if dissatisfied with its methods, though the right to
propose and secure different methods, if possible, cannot be denied
him; but his church relation is a divine obligation, and is not
voluntary in the same sense, nor may he withdraw from it volun-
tarily. Shinn, in his calm and effective " Eeview of the Appeal,"
has put this point beyond animadversion : " A man's obligation
to continue in the Church can only be cancelled by the official acts
of the Church taking away his Christian rights, in violation of
the laws of heaven. On this condition only can he have any right
to withdraw."1 A few months later Eev. Francis Waters, D.D.,

1 " Conference Rights ; or Governing Principles of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South," etc., by T. A. Kerley, Nashville, Teim. Publishing House, M. E.
Church, South. 1898. 12mo. 398 pp. Cloth.

This is an investigation of Methodist Episcopacy along the old lines in the
main, and is an apparent attempt to invalidate the conclusions of Rev. Dr. Tigert
in his " Constitutional History of Methodist Episcopacy in the Church, South, and
a review of the Hargrove-Kelly case," etc. Like nearly all Methodist Episcopal

116 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

in a review of a meeting of Methodists opposed to Reform in
Baltimore, among other effective rallies, says : " I remember that
when my friend Dr. Bond received his license to preach in the
district conference of 1824, on the question being put to him by
the chairman, or some member of the conference, whether he was
satisfied with the discipline of the church, he answered that he
was satisfied with it till it could be lawfully altered — modified."
So this champion of conservatism proposed to become a preacher
in the Church and stay in it until its Discipline could be changed
to suit him ; but now he informs the ■" Methodists " that a man
if dissatisfied has but one thing he can do — withdraw.

He had cast his Eeform principles to the wind, and, like all
perverts, he is now consumed with zeal in destroying the things
which once he builded. Next he takes up expediency, and,
remembering his own active part in memorializing the General
Conference in 1824, on this ground, he is careful not to stultify
himself by now denying that it is a ground for innovation; but
forthwith proceeds to show that it is highly inexpedient, and
accepts the opportunity to criticise three mooted plans which
several Reformers had, on their individual responsibility, sug-
gested. It is not, of course, a difficult thing for him to show
obstacles in the way of either. He pictures in lurid colors the
electioneering of the membership for lay-representatives, and the
limning is enough to affright timid people. But that is not
the worst; assuming it to be done at last after a practical inter-
necine war of the brethren, how are the expenses of such a repre-
sentation to the conferences to be raised? Now, he urges the
members are voluntary contributors to the support of the Church ;
then, he sees nothing but assessment and personal taxation. It

historiographers, Mr. Kerley knows nothing of the class of facts disclosed in this
" History of Methodist Reform." Yet he does see men as trees walking, stumbles
upon the truth here and there, and has rearranged for his own logical purpose the
facts of history. This voluntary notice is made of his work, but the principle ob-
ject of this citation is to fortify the position marked with this * from page '2!' :
" This voluntary membership in a society could be dissolved at any time, for any
cause, without sin ; but when these societies were merged into a Church, aud it
became to them the visible expression of their personal relation to Christ, the
case became quite otherwise. Membership in such a body is a duty. This duty
carries with it the right to a voice in the government. Therefore Mr. Wesley
could not say to them, ' If you do not like my will as law you can withdraw.' It
is only the majority of the Church that can say this, and then not until the minor-
ity have exhausted their legal rights to convince the majority. Neither can the
minority withdraw from the Church until they have used all proper efforts,
within the Church, to convince the majority. Duties and rights demand this
much of all parties."

BOND'S " PURSE-STRING " ARGUMENT 117

would be a repetition of the British Stamp Act and the tax upon
tea, and he shrinks from it in holy horror. He never once men-
tions the offsetting fact that such a representation would obviate
a presiding eldership, which, in the matter of cost, is fourfold
annually what the laymen would cost in the item of travel.
Hence it is utterly impracticable. Finally, he takes up McCaine's
Plan, already adverted to, and dissects it unsparingly. Not a
word is uttered, however, in review of the " History and Mys-
tery" itself — that is relegated to Dr. Emory. McCaine's Plan
he characterizes as " a base and disgraceful compromise." Though
occurring in the body of his pamphlet it is well that reserve is
made of the infamous " purse-string " argument, afterward so
called, but classically stated thus : " Our preachers are totally
dependent upon the voluntary contributions of the laity, and we
therefore have over them a positive and absolute control; for
whenever their flocks shall withdraw their support, the preachers
will be under the necessity of abandoning their present pastoral
relation and betaking themselves to some secular occupation."
The reader will marvel at the audacity of a professing Christian
physician, in the desperation of his cause, to adventure such an
argument, utterly repugnant as it is to the Scriptures, in viola-
tion of the Discipline, and repelled by every humanitarian
instinct. It must be said of it, that it was disingenuous and
insincere, and Dr. Bond shall be witness to it; for, in 1852, when
the British Wesleyan Reformers, mayhap getting their cue from
this very "Appeal" of Bond's, resorted to the tactics of
"withholding supplies," the redoubtable Doctor, hearing of it,
made a vehement "appeal" through the New York Christian
Advocate to American Methodists for contributions to these
Wesleyan preachers, and denounced the Reformers for their
conduct.

Consistency was not a jewel with Dr. Bond. But four months
before, February, 1852, through the same medium, he had repro-
duced this purse-string argument as valid. When a man in pub-
lic station lays bare for effect the weakness of his character, it is
legitimate to offer additional proof out of his own mouth.

The concluding paragraph of Dr. Bond's " Appeal " is a pompous
declaration of a self-opinionated and amazingly conceited man :
"We will add what we are sure will give satisfaction to the lovers
of peace, on both sides, whatever may be their opinions of all the
rest of our book, namely, that when our local brethren among
the Reformers shall abate something of their pretensions; and

118 HISTORY OF METHODIST BEFOBM

the lay-Reformers shall be satisfied with a representation, based
on the broad ground of expediency alone, without any reference
to abstract principles; we have terms of pacification to propose,
on which we think all parties may safely meet, and happily unite.
These terms, however, are, as yet, our own, having never com-
municated our views to any member or minister of the Church, of
either party; and while Reformers continue in their present
temper, it will probably be useless to propose anything which
does not quadrate with their 'visionary theories.' It must not
be inferred that we think any sort of lay or local representation
necessary. If we propose anything, it will be only for the sake
of peace." Magnanimous Dr. Bond! Had he been authorized
by the Episcopacy to offer terms? He had or he had not. If he
had, it was a " conspiracy " indeed, beside which that which Bond
alleged against Snethen and others, " for the destruction of the
Church," pales. If he had not, — and this is the presumption in
the absence of evidence which he never furnished, — then the top-
loftiness of his attitude is a spectacle. But not more so than
when, on his election to the editorship of the New York Christian
Advocate he made this deliverance to the Church, June, 1841:
" We are willing to serve the Church as Editor, if necessary, but
we hope the good Lord and the church will excuse us from the
dignity of the episcopacy." This and other cues already fur-
nished explain the otherwise incomprehensible conduct of a great
and good man when not pursuing his controversial bent, and out-
side of the gladiatorial arena in which he so loved to disport
himself.

CHAPTER VII

Dr. Bond's Appeal stimulating to the Reformers, and formed a distinct anti-reform
party — Prominent Union Societies organized — Bond's secretly manipulated
plan for expulsion of the Reformers ; particulars of it ; moralizings on the pros-
ecuting committee of seven laymen — Expulsion machinery set in motion; its
morale — Its conclusions foregone — Summons to Dr. Jennings, etc. ; suspension
and expulsion of the eleven local preachers and the twenty-two laymen of Bal-
timore city — Indignation of the outside community over it — Bond's " Narra-
tive and Defence " issued to mollify the indignation — McCaine's " History and
Mystery" made the ground of charges, and himself expelled and outlawed —
Ground of the persecution fairly stated by themselves — Alexander Yearley as
a type of the prosecuting committee — Content to pray, pay, and obey — Reform-
ers held inflexibly to a Principle and anti-reformers to the Power, and so could
not understand each other.

Dr. Bond's Appeal made a strong impression upon the Church.
On the Keformers it was stimulating to greater exertions, and
settled them in their convictions that a cause which could not com-
mand a better showing than he had made for it was barren indeed
of argumentative resources, as well as its implications that re-
pression by excommunication would soon be resorted to in answer
to the logic of the situation. It prompted the organization of
more Union Societies in various places. A large meeting of
Reformers for the lower Eastern Shore of Maryland was held in
Newtown church, July 25, 1827, with representatives from that
whole section. Eev. Dr. Francis Waters led in this movement,
with such men as Eev. 'David Watts, Eev. Avra Melvin of the
local preachers, John Williams, Daniel Ballard, William Quinton,
William Smith, James White, and James Lawson, leading mem-
bers and citizens, who formed a society and elected delegates to
the November General Convention. They issued a masterly re-
view of the situation confronting them, probably written by Dr.
Waters. A large meeting was also held in Kent County, con-
vened in the church at Chestertown, August 11, and the fact that
they met in the church in both these instances is in proof that
the movement was so influential that the Itinerants did not dare
to interpose through the trustees to prevent it. Such men as
Rev. Thomas Walker, John Constable, William Harris, and

119

120 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

William Copper furnished the officers for the society, of great
social and religious influence. John Constable, William R.
Durding, and John Turner were sent as delegates to the Con-
vention. "At a general meeting of the male members of the
Methodist Episcopal Church in Pittsburgh," held September 27,
of which Thomas Cooper was Chairman and Charles Avery Secre-
tary, in the church, — for here again the deed to the property, as
well as the dominance of Reformers, gave them control of it, —
resolutions were passed denouncing the expulsions in Baltimore
which had just taken place. And on October 4, a general meet-
ing of Reformers was held in Washington, Pa., for the entire
section of West Pennsylvania and Ohio, and a strong delegation
elected to the Convention. They were : Charles Avery, a lead-
ing local preacher and a man of growing wealth and social influ-
ence, whose after career shall receive further notice in the history
of the Methodist Protestant Church; Patrick Leonard, William
Scholey, John Bissell, Samuel Bushfield, Henry Ebert, William
Robinson, Samuel Hazlett, David M' Masters, William Evans,
Archibald Hawkins, Alexander Sutherland, John Strickler, Wil-
liam Griffith, and Thomas M'Keever. In Centreville, Ind., a
Union Society was formed September 1, Rev. Elijah M'Daniel
President and John Scott Secretary. In Philadelphia, despite
the unfavorable effect of the discontinuance of the Wesleyan Re-
pository and the Local Preacher question, meetings of Reformers
were held in the court-house, corner of Sixth and Chestnut streets,
and they elected from the Union Society such strong men as
Dr. Thomas Dunn, a local preacher of more than average ability
and wide influence, W. S. Stockton, John S. Furey, Rev. John
McCloskey, and Rev. A. A. Palmer. In Cincinnati, where the
Union Society was formed as early as November 17, 1825, and
therefore among the earliest, decided action was taken. Dr. Bas-
sett says : " Its membership included most of the leading influen-
tial members of the Church. The writer has in possession the
records of the society, with a list of 120 names, all males, and
nearly all, he believes, heads of families." Rev. George Brown
during his eldership quietly, and afterward while stationed at
Steubenville, O., publicly; Rev. Henry B. Bascom; the two
Henkles, Saul and Moses M., brothers of Eli of Maryland, —
all Reformers, were of the Western leaders. Space would fail
to enumerate all the Societies and make honorable mention of the
stanch men who organized them.

Another effect of Bond's Appeal was to concentrate the oppo-

REFORMERS AND ANTI-REFORMERS IN ARRAY 121

sition, under his lead, though covertly, that he might better
manipulate the concerted plan to expel the Reformers. He was
in his element as he "sat on the whirlwind and directed the
storm" — to employ a figure he applied to Snethen. He alleged
that the prosecutions were entered upon by the laity without
"any itinerant suggestion or influence whatever," and when he
was charged with complicity by his former Reforming friends,
he declared it was "a personal insult without provocation." It
was a principal purpose of Dr. Jennings's " Exposition " x to prove
his absolute leadership in the expulsions, and to it any reader
wishing the indubitable proof is referred; but it is unnecessary,
for Dr. Bond subsequently avowed himself the author of " The
Narrative and Defence " and of all the proceedings leading to the
expulsions, and plumed himself on the service he had rendered
the Church. It is in order to notice the steps taken. Private
meetings were called at Brown's dwelling and Boszel's school-
house in East Baltimore, and when the scheme was matured, a
public meeting of the members of the Methodist Episcopal Church
was called, after selecting seven laymen who were willing and
zealous to enter upon the work of trial and expulsion, in the old
Baptist church at the corner of Pitt and Front streets, August 7,
1827, after public notice from all the Methodist pulpits. It is
denominated "a very large meeting of the male members (ex-
clusive of the members of the Union Society)." This brings into
view for brief notice the third effect of Dr. Bond's Appeal. This
called meeting, under such extraordinary cautions, drove nearly
all the neutrals into the ranks of the anti-reformers. A large
number of the class professed themselves convinced by it, as well
as not a few of the itinerants, who accepted it as a refuge while
bowing before the storm, so that while a few years before most

1 "An Exposition of the Late Controversy in the Methodist Episcopal Church ;
of the true objects of the parties concerned therein, and of the proceedings by
which reformers were expelled in Baltimore, Cincinnati, and other places, or a
Review of the Methodist Magazine and Quarterly Review, on Petitions and Memo-
rials." By Samuel K. Jennings, M.D. To which are appended remarks on an
article entitled "Asbury's Life," which appeared in the Methodist Magazine,
etc., for January, 1831. By a Layman. Baltimore. Published by J. J. Harrod.
Printed by William Woody, No. 6 South Calvert Street. 1831. Large 8vo. 247
Pp., boards. This volume is now scarce, but several are in the possession of the
writer. " By a Layman " was Dr. Jennings himself, but as the matter was purely
personal he preferred not to obtrude his name. It thoroughly exposes Dr. Bond's
immediate connection with the expulsions, gives the particulars of Jennings's
trial, and that of his ten local preacher associates and the twenty-two laymen
who were simultaneously expelled in the summer of 1827 in Baltimore city.

122 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

of the Baltimore Methodists were Eeformers by profession or by-
sympathy, now a large number rallied as opponents and gave the
active prosecutors a lever for future operations, under color of a
lay uprising to purge the Church of the " disaffected spirits " who
would not surrender principle to power.

Outside of Baltimore and the state of Maryland, the Appeal
gave a large number of the members their first information of
Beform under the specious showing of Dr. Bond; for while
Shinn's "Brief Beview," in three parts, immediately followed its
publication, and Snethen and McCaine met the personal allusions
to them in its introduction, they served only to fortify the un-
flinching men who found access to his "Brief Beview," either
through the Mutual Bights or through its after pamphlet issue.
Ten read the Appeal where one read the Beview. There can be
no doubt that it did much to arrest the progress of Beform. This
public meeting of August 7 inaugurated an anti-reform party of
the most pronounced character. The Dorsey suspension found
publication in the secular papers, and it provoked a generous
sympathy from Christians of other denominations in Baltimore.
It was the subject of comment in religious circles generally, so
that the Bond party found it absolutely necessary that some
counteracting measure should be instituted; hence this public
meeting of the anti -reform party. It passed two resolutions:
first, that "we are firmly persuaded the Baltimore Annual Con-
ference acted in the case of the said Dennis B. Dorsey with
becoming prudence and with great lenity; with a just apprehen-
sion of their duty, both to their offending brother and to the
church of God;" second, "that the following Address be pub-
lished by the committee who reported it, and that it be distributed
under their direction." It was as widely circulated as the Appeal,
and bears the marks of Dr. Bond's authorship. It covers seven
octavo pages, and is a specious presentation of all that could be
said apologetic of that action. It is a wonderful production,
when it is considered that it is directed against brethren for
"circulating an improper periodical publication," in which the
itinerants were held up to "public odium by misrepresenting
both their actions and their motives," etc.

In view of these allegations it will be well to give a few
excerpts from this Christian (?) Address. After giving what it
claims to be "a plain, unvarnished statement of the transaction,"
it proceeds to justify the Conference action by citing the slander-
ous doings of the Eeformers. McCaine's " History and Mystery "

ANTI-REFORMERS ON THE DEFENSIVE 123

is characterized by these meek and mild-mannered brethren in
these choice terms : " a pamphlet written by a local preacher, in
which the whole system of Methodism is assailed with the guile
and artifice and sophistry of a Jesuit, and with all the malignity
of which the human heart is capable, ... a work which, for
malignity of purpose, shrewd cunning, misrepresentation of facts,
and gross misstatement of circumstances, has no parallel among
the productions of modern times, on a similar subject, except the
far-famed Cobbett's 'History of the Reformation.' " Charity is
mingled with truth in that it does make an exception of Cobbett,
for which no doubt McCaine felt under obligations at the time.
The dovelike innocence of these brethren, echoing the words of
Dr. Bond, in thus " speaking evil " of an honored and reputable
minister of the Church, remained serenely undisturbed. They
say in proof : " The present storm may be necessary to defecate
and purify the Church of Laodicean lukewarm professors. Let
us deeply humble ourselves before God. Let us watch unto
prayer both for ourselves and for our deluded brethren." They
notice " Vindex," Henry B. Bascom's, rhetoric on the Dorsey sus-
pension, "a labored deed of hard-earned infamy," as language
which "outraged all decency, and applied to the conduct of the
Conference the most abusive epithets to which malignity itself
could resort." When Bascom read it, he was surprised, and
calmly analyzed the sentence, word for word, but failed to find,
as every reader of to-day will also fail, how it "outraged all
decency of language " or was among the " most abusive epithets
to which malignity itself could resort." These brethren, who
kept such "a watch upon the door of their lips," as the naughty
Eeformers could not and would not, conclude their Address in
this pious strain, "We do most earnestly pray that the great
Head of the Church may restore to our afflicted Zion all the
blessings of concord and unanimity, in both opinion and effort,
and that he may preserve us in the unity of the Spirit and the
bond of peace." This was their method of bringing it about.
The Address is signed, William Wilkins, Chairman, and John
Howland, Secretary.

This Address was answered almost simultaneously by the issue
of four pamphlets by distinguished Eeformers : one by Eev. Dr.
Francis Waters, of sixteen octavo pages, already referred to,
under address, "Somerset County, Md., September 14, 1827";
one by Asa Shinn, under title : " A Finishing Stroke to the high
claims of ecclesiastical sovereignty in reply to the Address of a

124 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

meeting of lay members," of twenty-nine pages; one by Dennis B.
Dorsey, of seventeen pages, September 10 ; and one by a " Member
of the Baltimore Conference," of seven pages, as also a letter
from Bascom. The writer had marked a number of passages in
each of these for citation, but forbears to do so. It is sufficient
to say — and all the pamphlets are extant if a doubt be expressed
— that Shinn leaves the Address utterly bare ; Waters with the
touch of a Christian gentleman shames it; while Dorsey refutes
it inch by inch, and makes it plain from actual pew measurement
that the "very large meeting of male members" could not have
been more than 350, and that witnesses testify that not more
than 250 voted for the Address, though the open dissentients
were but few, and this after every effort to bring together all
anti-reformers. The entire male membership in Baltimore was
perhaps 500 out of a total less than 3000. x A single quotation
from Bascom must suffice, as it furnishes as well a reason for not
cumbering these pages with the elaborate replies: "This Address
and the late 'Appeal' of Jesuitical memory, are destined to do
the cause of Reform much good; the more they write the better;
I know no one who has been 'rebuked' into silence, and such as
have we do not want. Let reformers be firm ; we will not leave
the Church; and where we can yield, for peace' sake let us do it;
let us only resist where principle and duty call for it." These
are words of reason; but, alas, a stage had been reached when
Reformers were "not to be reasoned with, but punished" — the
evil hour of Shinn's sagacious prediction. Universal history is
the witness to Snethen's axiomatic truth, repeated that the reader
shall not forget its application to every foot of the ground now
contested : " Power combined with interest and inclination cannot
be controlled by logic; but even power shrinks from the test of
logic."

Meantime the combination formed by Dr. Bond for the expul-
sion of Eeformers matured its arrangements. That it was done
without conference and advice from the officials of the Church
no one will believe with any knowledge of its polity and genius.
Joseph Frye was Presiding Elder of the Baltimore district, and
James M. Hanson, at one time listed with Reformers of the Emory
class, was preacher in charge of the city station with assistants.
Stephen G. Roszel was Elder on Potomac district within easy
reach. A month after the public meeting, to give color to their
proceedings, the machinery was set in motion. Jennings says,

1 Mutual Rights, Vol. IV. p. 391.

PERSECUTION OF REFORMERS INITIATED 125

" The seven prosecutors, the three local preachers who afterward
sat in judgment on the cases of the ten local preachers, as also
the committee, who in like manner sat in judgment on the
twenty-two members who have been expelled, were all present
and voted, and of course virtually pledged themselves to stand
by the prosecution."1 Their cases were prejudged, so that
nothing was required but to get up charges and specifications in
accord with the prejudgment. Hanson had written a letter to the
venerable brother, Thomas Jacobs of Alexandria, Va., a quiet
Eeformer: "I am disposed to view the greater part of them
Reformers] as holding a relation to the Church, to which in jus-
tice and propriety, nay, even in charity itself, they are no longer
entitled." 1 And this was the position of the judge.

The Reformers were not without intimations of the impending
proceedings. August 17, 1827, the Reformers, as such, received
notification through the venerable President of the Union Society,
John Chappell, Sr., from the self-appointed committee of Dr.
Bond's selection, as follows: "The undersigned, believing that
the members of the Baltimore Union Society have violated the
Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and being desirous
of having a friendly interview with them individually, previous
to instituting charges against them, if necessary, we respectfully
request to be furnished with the names of the members of said
Union Society. Signed: George Earnest, Jacob Rodgers, Isaac
N. Toy, Samuel Harden, Alexander Yearley, John Berry, Fielder
Israel (Members of the Methodist Episcopal Church)." It may
be observed in passing that these brethren were reputable and
leading laymen of the Church. The last was a son of the vener-
able Beal Israel, a member of the " Corresponding Committee " of
the Union Society, and is in evidence how families were divided
in sentiment on the subject. Examine the facts, and let pos-
terity marvel at the uncompromising hostility of the anti-re-
formers: Fielder Israel, the son, accepts the relation of Inquisitor
to expel from the Church Beal Israel, his father. Inquiry may
be made for " natural affection. " This Fielder was also the father
of Fielder, Jr., who subsequently became eminent in the ministry
of the Baltimore Conference, changed his doctrinal views, left
the Church, and died out of its communion. It may be well that
posterity may preserve for honor or dishonor, as the verdict of
the impartial readers of these pages shall be, to give the officers
of the Union Society for this year 1827-28: President, John

1 Jennings's "Exposition."

126 UISTOliY OF METHODIST REFORM

Chappell, Sr. ; Vice-President, Daniel E. Reese; Treasurer,
James R. Williams; Secretary, Levi R. Reese; Corresponding
Committee, John J. Harrod, Thomas M'Cormick, Beal Israel;
Editorial Committee, Samuel K. Jennings, James R. Williams,
William Kesley, John S. Reese, John Robb, John Chappell,
Wesley Starr, Thomas Mummy, John Kennard, Ebenezer Strahen.
They had just been elected, August 1, and the list published in
the periodical for September. The modest request of the prose-
cuting committee of seven for " the names of the members " had
the complexion of "Greeks bearing gifts."

Rev. James R. Williams had an interview with Fielder Israel,
requesting information as to their purpose against Reformers.
Israel was candid, and voiced the whole situation in reply : " You
and your friends are members of the Union Society, and say you
will not leave it. You publish the Mutual Rights, and say
you will not discontinue that publication. You also say that
you will not withdraw from the Methodist Episcopal Church.
Now we are reduced to one of two alternatives : either to let you
remain members of the Church and go on peacefully publishing
the Mutual Bights, by which you agitate the church, or expel you.
We have come to the determination to take the latter alternative,
and expel you." * It was a fair and square statement of the case
for both sides. The Reformers claimed the right of free publi-
cation and free speech as to the government of the Church, as
members thereof. The anti-reformers, backed with the power to
execute their menace, said, governmental Methodism shall no
longer be criticised or written against by the members thereof.
In accordance with their plan to visit the brethren accused, two
of the committee, George Earnest and Fielder Israel, waited upon
Rev. Dr. Jennings, and in an interview of two hours endeavored
to induce him to abandon the Union Society and the publication
of the Mutual Bights, i.e. surrender their whole cause. His
answer he well summed up : " Experience had demonstrated the
necessity of sustaining the periodical by the organization of
Union Societies. Such, indeed, had been their effect, that we
were entirely satisfied with the prospect of success, and the pro-
ceedings of the power party prove that they were no less appre-
hensive of the ultimate result. Were we not bound by every
consideration of justice and propriety to say to them in reply,
that we considered their attempt at coercion in this matter alto-
gether out of the way? In fact, if obedience had been the price

1 Jennings's " Exposition."

PROSECUTING COMMITTEE AT WORK 127

of personal safety, the price would have been considered too dear.
It is believed we would not have yielded the rights for which we
contended, under existing circumstances, to have saved our lives."
It is the whole question again fully stated. Members of the
Committee of Seven waited on other Keformers, and in some cases
did not receive the courteous treatment Dr. Jennings accorded his
interlocutors. It must be confessed it required a higher degree
of Christian forbearance and meekness than some of them had
yet attained to meet impertinent advances and consider proposi-
tions which demanded that they should sink, not only their
Christian rights, but their American manhood. These prelimi-
naries over, as a part of the mockery of expulsion, formal prose-
cution was entered against them. It is worth the mention that
not until four months after, when the Committee of Seven, to
meet the general indignation of the local religious community
aroused to the pitch of inchoate protest, joining that of the
expelled Reformers themselves, led by Dr. Bond, prepared "A
Narrative and Defence " 1 of the proceedings, in which he states
the only truthful allegation which could be made against his
quondam friends; it is that the Union Societies in the Church
"incorporated the spirit of party in its very constitution." This
was true, but it is defensive on the only two grounds which could
make it a justification of expulsion from the visible Church of
God, namely, the immorality of the act or its disciplinary viola-
tion. The first was not hinted until the power party found it
impossible to overcome the general indignation of the outside
community, while the second never was successfully accom-

1 " A Narrative and Defence of the Proceedings of the Methodist Episcopal
Church in Baltimore City Station against certain Local Preachers and Laymen of
said Church hy the persons who preferred and sustained the charges, to which is
added an Appendix containing the Rev. James M. Hanson's Vindication of his
official conduct in relation to the above proceedings ; together with other interest-
ing documents." Baltimore. Published by Armstrong and Plaskett. J. D. Toy,
Printer. 1828. 8vo. 135 pp.

It purports to have been written by the Committee of Seven, but subsequently
Dr. Bond, unwilling to lose the honor of its authorship, confessed that he had
written it. It appeared early in 1828, or some four months after the expulsions,
and the immediate occasion of its issuance was the publication in the secular
papers of the city of Dr. Jennings's " Protest " against the expulsory proceedings
in his case. It excited the whole Christian community, the Presbyterians, the
Baptists, and the Lutherans being specially interested as exponents of religious
liberty. One of the leading physicians of the city, a prominent citizen, an unim-
peachable Christian gentleman, and a preacher of such popularity that crowds
always attended when he was announced, the task Dr. Bond set himself to prove
was a difficult one — even to prove as he had averred that " a man may be a good
Christian but not a good Methodist."

128 HISTOBY OF METHODIST REFORM

plished; Shinn had put an extinguisher upon all such attempts
in his parallel of the Union Societies with Wesley's United
Societies within the Church of England.

It has been the prayerful endeavor of the writer to give an
impartial account of this ancient controversy, and to this end he
has given prominence to the statements of the opponents of
Reform, a method quite unprecedented in Methodist controver-
sial history heretofore. In pursuance of this method, in travers-
ing the expulsions in Baltimore, typical of all the others, and
these alike in all the essential features, he will cite from the
" Narrative and Defence " the facts in the case. The prosecutions
were inaugurated by the following summons sent to Dr. Jen-
nings : —

Baltimore, Sept. 8, 1827.

Dear Sir : You are hereby informed that charges have been preferred
against you by the following persons : J. Rodgers, S. Harden, J. Berry, I. N.
Toy, A. Yearley, G. Earnest, and F. Israel. As it is desirable for the satis-
faction of all who feel an interest in the matter, that a hearing should be had
as soon as practicable, it is hoped that Tuesday evening next, at 7 o'clock, will
suit your convenience.

Yours respectfully,

James M. Hanson.

Dr. Jennings wrote for a copy of the charges. They were sent
on Monday, the 10th, one day before the date of trial. They
are as follows : " The Eev. Samuel K. Jennings is charged with
endeavoring to sow dissensions in the society or church in this
station or city known by the name of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, and with the violation of the general rule of the disci-
pline of the said church or society, which prohibits its members
from doing harm, and requires them to avoid evil of every kind;
and especially the violating that clause of said general rule which
prohibits speaking evil of ministers." The specifications are
three in number, and are briefly stated: "1st. Becoming a mem-
ber of the Union Society. 2d. Directly or indirectly supporting
the Mutual Rights, and the evils consequent upon its publication.
.'kl. Approving the 'History and Mystery ' written by Alexander
McCaine, which contains assertions made 'without proper proof
or just foundation, calculated to disgrace and bring reproach upon
the Church ' and to 'produce, increase, and heighten the disagree-
ments, strife, contention, and breach of union alluded to in the
second specification. ' " The proofs are sundry citations from the
Mutual Rights, by Snethen, Shinn, Brown, Dorsey, McCainr.
Bascom, W W Hill, and Joseph Walker of Alabama. In addi-

WITNESS OF ANTI-BEFORMEBS 129

tion the " History and Mystery " as an entire pamphlet was cited,
" with such other documentary or oral proof as the undersigned
may deem expedient to exhibit or produce." Signed by the Com-
mittee of Seven.

Jennings demurred to the shortness of the time allowed him,
to which the preacher in charge, James M. Hanson, answered by
expressing astonishment that he should want further time, as the
evidence was all published to the world and speaks for itself.
Five days of grace were granted. Citing again from the " Narra-
tive and Defence," "the preacher in charge caused each of the
persons accused to be furnished with a copy of the charges
and specifications, and notified them of the time of their trial
severally." They were sent to the following eleven local
preachers, a number of whom were ordained ministers, and one,
McCaine, an itinerant of thirty years' standing. Appended to
the name of each local preacher will be found the years of his
membership in the Church: S. K. Jennings, 30; A. McCaine,
30; J. C. French, 20; J.R.Williams, 27; D. E. Reese, 33; J.
Valiant, 27; W. Kesley, 26; T. M'Cormick, 16; L. J. Cox, 19;
J. S. Eeese, 17; R.T.Boyd, 11. Twenty-five laymen were cited
as follows: W. J. Chappell, 46; J. Kennard, 23; J. J. Harrod,
20; T. Mummy, 16; E. Strahen, 8; A. Emmerson, 25; L. Thomas,
26; L. R. Reese, 4; T. Patterson, 16; J. Hawkins, 12; J. P.
Howard, 10; W. Starr, 20; J. P Paul, 15; J. R. Foreman, 19;
W. K. Boyle, 25; S. Jarrett, 30; T. Jarrett, 32; S. Guest, 14;
G. B. Northman, 15; S. Krebs, 22; S. Thompson, 12; T. Par-
sons, 12; J. Coates (acquitted), J. Stinchcomb (acquitted), and
J. Comegys (acquitted). It will be seen that the drag-net had
included three more than could be inculpated even under such
charges as were laid.

Realizing how serious the business was, as these names are
inclusive of the leading preachers, and the laymen of as high
standing in every sense as the Committee of Seven, pause was
had under the diplomacy of Dr. Bond, and another effort made
to coerce the recalcitrants into measures. The " Narrative " says :
"Dr. Bond, who had not yet relinquished the hope that some
conciliatory course might be devised, . . . ventured alone and
without our knowledge upon the business of negotiation. Hav-
ing a particular intimacy with Rev. J. S. Reese, and reposing
great confidence in his understanding, piety, and prudence, the
doctor communicated his intentions to him." The reader will
mark that Dr. Bond is the writer of this account. His proposal

VOL. II — K

130 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

to Dr. Reese was that after the Reformers had held their an-
nounced Convention in November proximo, that the Union
Societies should be dissolved, and the Mutual Rights, if continued
at all, to be so only under persons chosen mutually by the two
parties. It was made September 15, referred to the Union Society
by Dr. Reese, and action taken that no response should be made.
The reasons are obvious enough. The trials proceeded in order
of time appointed, Dr. Jennings being first. The committee
selected to try the local preachers, says the "Narrative," were,
John W. Harris, Samuel Williams, and Thomas Bassford. These
three were good men, but of very inferior talent and reputation
as preachers. Wherefore then chosen? It is indisputable that
the brains and piety of the Baltimore locality were, with the
exception of Dr. Bond, listed with the Reformers. McCaine's
case was made an exception; two were taken from Baltimore
County, and one from East Baltimore station, namely, Rev.
Samuel Gore, Nicholas Harden, and Edward Hall. The com-
mittee to try the lay-members were : Baltzer Schaeffer, Thomas
Kelso, Alexander Russell, Thomas Armstrong, John W. Berry,
and William McConkey, Jr. They were good men and of as high
standing as the Committee of Seven. Dr. Jennings has been made
a typical case. The Mutual Bights for this period, and Jennings's
" Exposition " in particular, cover the elaborate defence he made
under three separate protests, analyzing the charges, dissecting
the specifications, and nullifying the proofs, and to these sources
the reader must be referred who wishes to peruse the literature
of the subject. All the protests and exceptions were overruled
by the chair, James M. Hanson. No one can carefully peruse
the testimony and the proceedings of trial and not be convinced
that the verdict was foregone. He was found guilty and sus-
pended from his ministerial office. The same result followed in
the cases of the other nine preachers. McCaine's separate trial
resulted like the others, and was conducted in his absence, as he
refused to recognize the court and jury, except that no condition
was annexed to his case; he was outlawed, no room being allowed
him for repentance. The laymen were similarly disposed of — a
common expulsion. All the papers in the case of the venerable
President of the Union Society, John Chappell, Sr., are in my
possession and accessible as ecclesiastical curiosities in this day.
A number of the suspended and expelled published individual
accounts of their trials, and each is a masterful pamphlet, that
of Daniel E. Reese already referred to being the most searching

EXPULSION OF BALTIMORE REFORMERS 131

and elaborate; William Kesley, James R. Williams, and Levi R.
Reese being of the number.

McCaine's "History and Mystery" was specially dwelt upon
in the trials, and with reason. Its disclosures were startling to
the Methodists wherever they became known. He had trodden
a new path, and the discoveries made in the esoteric of Methodist
history were such as to make his euphonious title pertinent —
Mystery as well as History. As already intimated, even the
Reformers were confronted in it with a new phase, and they re-
ceived it cautiously. The "Narrative and Defence" says that,
when Dr. Jennings was plied with it as a factor in Reform, he
answered, " he thought the publication of it at this time rather a
fortunate circumstance, as an opportunity was thereby afforded
to the Church to rebut the charges by proper evidence, if it could
be done, before the time should pass in which the evidence could
be collected." The italicized words are Dr. Bond's. This was
the justification for its publication at the time, as otherwise it
would have been better for the cause of Reform if it had not been
handicapped with the issue it raised. It shall be shown that it
never has been disproved, and thus one of the strongest points
of evidence on which the Baltimore Reformers were expelled
remains unrefuted. It must be conceded that from the point of
view of the prosecutors there was enough in its unqualified and
unmincing declarations, as well as in the arguments and affirma-
tions, if not in the language of some of the contributions to the
Mutual Rights, to posit a charge of calumnious writing as they
construed it.1 But this alone, perhaps, would have been con-
doned,— indeed, the conciliatory approaches are in proof, — but

1 Perfect fairness to the author of the " Narrative and Defence," as well as
the prosecuting committee, demands that they should be allowed to state their
case from their own point of view, so citation is made from the pamphlet to this
effect: "Our complaint against the members of the Union Society is not on ac-
count of their opinions on the subject of church government, nor for the honest
and candid expression of their opinions, but for the misrepresentation of the mo-
tives and conduct of our ministers, and for endeavoring to sow dissensions in our
Church by inveighing against the discipline. Nor do we understand by ' inveigh-
ing,' the temperate expression of opinion, or calm and dispassionate argument in
favor of changing any part of our discipline, but we understand it to mean ' ve-
hement railing,' ' abusive censure,' or ' reproach.' , . "We repeat then that it is
not for being reformers themselves, or for endeavoring to make reformers of
others, nor for uttering and publishing their opinions on the subject of reform ,
that we complain of the members of the Union Society, but we complain that
they have employed against their brethren in the ministry, and against the disci-
pline of the Church, the severest invectives and the most vehement railings. They
have impugned the motives of our venerable bishops and our itinerant ministers
with unrelenting severity, and accused them without a shadow of proof with con-

132 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

the Reformers were contumacious as well, and as they could not
be humbled or broken, figments of church law were evoked, and
they were excommunicated. Jennings's subsequent analysis of
the charges and specifications in syllogistic form in his " Exposi-
tion " clearly establishes this conclusion; treating of one, namely,
"the Union Society is in opposition to the discipline, in whole
or in part, of the Methodist Episcopal Church." In the " 'Narra-
tive and Defence ' they say, 'the Union Society is a body not
recognized by the discipline.' It follows in course, then, not
prohibited. And yet they seem persuaded that Union Societies
must be in opposition to the Methodist Episcopal Church, if not
in whole, at any event in part. They were like Peter in Dean
Swift's tale of the tub. If the necessary opposition could not be
established by any known and promulgated rule, they could make
it out by some rule of construction. It was all in their own
hands, and they did make it out." The candid reader, after this
specimen of the anti-reformers' position and the pulverizing logic
of the Eeformers of the Jennings, McCaine, Snethen, Shinn,
Bascom class, will excuse the writer for not consuming precious
space with more of the kindred literature of the anti-reform
power party. They undoubtedly satisfied themselves that they
were " doing God service " in general, and the Methodist Epis-
copal Church in particular.

Bond's Appeal and his " Narrative and Defence " satisfied many
others. The Methodist Magazine and the Christian Advocate in-
dulged in laudatory commendations, and the educating force of
all the publications combined turned the tide of influence against
Reform. And yet it was strongly intrenched in the Church, and
justly excited the apprehensions of the adherents of the old regime
that, if such progress had been made in seven years, seven more
would find them in possession of an utterly unmanageable majority

duct which would render men odious, even in civil society, and how much more
in the Church of God? They represent them to the world as usurpers, as tyrants
and despots, 'lording it over God's heritage,' as exercising an arbitrary author-
ity, which was at first ' surreptitiously ' obtained, and which has been perpetuated
by printing and publishing a falsehood in the preface to our book of discipline,
and by forbidding the people to inquire into the truth of the affair." These alle-
gations they believed were proven by the extracts submitted from the Reform
publications, and specially it will be noted from McCaine's pamphlet. On the
trials, discussion, however, was strictly ruled out of order on the extracts so fur-
nished, and as to McCaine's incisive allegations it will be seen that they are fully
sustained as to the main points alluded to in the summation just given from the
" Narrative and Defence ; " but at this stage of the matter it is not to be wondered
at that he was esteemed a vile traducer.

FURTHER WITNESS OF ANTI-REFORMERS 133

of the whole Church. Up to December, 1827, twenty -four Union
Societies had been formed in twelve states of the American Union.
" In those Societies were to be found some of the most distin-
guished ministers of the Methodist Episcopal Church in point of
piety, talent, and influence. But no character was too fair, at
this stage of the reform history, not to be attacked and aspersed
by the votaries of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Even the
much honored Bascom and his colaborers . . . were denounced by
the prosecuting committee as a 'reckless assailant that transcends
all decency of invective.' To be in favor of Beform, or of
Mutual Rights, was regarded by the advocates of the old order
of things as an offence calling for expulsion from the Church."1
One other excusatory phase of the anti-reform brethren must
be considered in making up a judgment as to their persecuting
proceedings against brethren formerly beloved and even members
of their own households. As noted, they reached the conclusion
that the evidence was sufficient, and it is a part of the rationale
that they were mentally and morally of a type easy to reach such
a conclusion. Alexander Yearley, a reputable merchant and
a leading official in the Church, next to Fielder Israel, who was
the spokesman of the Committee of Seven, furnishes the keynote
of their underlying character. At the trial of Daniel E. Beese
he ventured at its conclusion to make this deliverance : " I have
been a Methodist ever since the days of Wesley, and have lived
happy under the Discipline which our brother has thought so
despotic, until this political scheme of liberty (a liberty to do
wrong, I suppose) was got up ; I thank God for the privilege of
belonging to a church which brings us up to a strict discipline.
It is strange to me that brethren make such a hue and cry about
right. They have as much right to take up arms against the
state, and consider themselves good citizens, as to rise up against
the Discipline of the Church, as they have done, and call them-
selves good Methodists." 2 The inconsequent reasoning need not
be considered; it is patent and of the staple of all the opposing
views of Beform fairly stated. And as to discipline, moral dis-
cipline, no society can exist without it, and no one can object to
its exercise, when the laws under which it is done are made with
the consent of those who are to be the subjects of discipline. No
Reformer was ever wild enough in his theories to question it.
But this is evidently not brother Yearley's idea. Snethen hap-

1 Paris's "History," pp. 167, 168.

2 Rev. D. E. Reese's " Protests," etc., p. 16. 16 pp. 1827.

134 HISTOBY OF METHODIST BEFOBM

pily satirizes his meaning : " It is said that when a Chinese is
punished by a Mandarin, he returns his most humble and grateful
acknowledgements to that high officer for the fatherly care he
takes of his education. The law, it is presumed, obliged him to
do so. " Brother Yearley had " lived happy under the Discipline, "
and many thousands more then and since. He had and they have
practised without fault the layman's rights under it, — pray, pay,
and obey. The administration to such is an easy yoke; with the
law they have had little concern. And it must be confessed
that there is a large class of people for whom such a system is
best as a controlling force. They are " happy under it " ; what
more concern? Converted at the Church altars in youth or early
manhood, the doctrines of free grace and the means of spiritual
growth absorbed their attention, while on their reception they
had affirmatively answered the question : " Will you cheerfully be
governed by the rules of the Methodist Episcopal Church?" not
once in fifty cases knowing what they were and are. Adminis-
tration is easy while implicit obedience continues. And there is
no criticism of all this method. The Eeformers made no such
issue in 1820-30, though by the anti-reformers it was charged
that it was the only issue in fact. What they claimed was the
right to examine the Discipline, the law of the Church, to consult,
to express opinions, to publish them, and seek by petition and
personal combination to effect changes which they as conscien-
tiously believed would be to the benefit of the Church as their
opponents believed would be to its injury. The only difference
between them and the respective situations was : the Eeformers
held inflexibly to the Principle ; the anti-reformers held inflexibly
to the Power, and exercised it. They did not and could not com-
prehend each other. Brother Yearley said : " It is strange to me
that brethren make such a hue and cry about right." He never
felt any disposition to inquire into his rights, and as to oppres-
sion and deprivation, he knew nothing of the kind. A dog
chained under his master's wagon does not know that he is
chained so long as he keeps pace with the horses. But let him
fag or pull back, and he gets a hint of his true condition. And
thus is disclosed the practical philosophy of this ancient Metho-
dist controversy, with the one hundred years of disaffections,
discussions, expulsions, secessions, resulting in numerous excised
branches of the common Wesleyan vine, the direct result of
entailed Paternalism in its polity, which have made a track of
history such as these volumes trace.

CHAPTER VIII

Bascom's expose of the threatened dissolution of the Pittsburgh Conference as a
menace to its Reformers — The expulsions lead to more Union Societies far and
near — The General Convention of Reformers in Baltimore November 15, 1827 ;
roster of members ; principal business ; Memorial to the ensuing General Con-
ference and an Address to the general Church ; nature of both proceedings set
forth — Dr. Bond calls a halt of expulsions covertly; the Dr. Green plot his
invention ; its character and failure — Meeting of Reform Methodists to offset
Dr. Bond's meeting ; what it did ; the ' ' moral discipline ' ' feint — The Baltimore
District Conference meets to hear the appeal of the suspended local preachers ;
how it was manipulated by Dr. Bond by the votes of colored members (non-
voters under the Discipline in Maryland) ; full history of this infamous step —
The immorality question considered.

During the summer and early fall of 1827 pamphlet after
pamphlet appeared, and meeting after meeting of Union Societies
was held, as well as public meetings of members of the Church,
in various places favorable to Reform, and in protest of the sus-
pension of Dennis B. Dorsey, and of the eleven local preachers,
and the expulsion of the twenty-two laymen in Baltimore. Such
was the disaffection in Pittsburgh and Washington, Pa., as well
as other points, that "Plain Dealer," H. B. Bascom, advised the
Keformers through the periodical, in October, 1827 (see Vol.
IV p. 91), that "there is a measure in contemplation which I
think proper to make known, — it comes from one of our bishops
and the witnesses are eight or ten in number, — it is a determina-
tion to dissolve the Pittsburgh Annual Conference, at the next Gen-
eral Conference, should its members persist in their attachment
to the principles of reform. Now, in my judgment, there is more
want of principle, more deliberate cruelty in this hard-hearted,
unjustifiable measure of oppression than all the petty deeds of
persecution Avith which our modern journals have been stained.
Merciful God! and are these the only weapons Christian bishops
and their ministerial dependants can use to exterminate error !
T heard it with regret, I write it with sorrow; but it is due to
the Methodist public that it should be known. The territory
embraced by the Pittsburgh Annual Conference supports a popu-
lation of several hundred thousand, — there are nearly ninety

135

136 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

travelling preachers belonging to the conference, and some of
them inferior to none in the United States, — but all this avails
nothing, reform must go down, right or wrong, and hence the
meditated blow at the very existence of the conference. . If

private character must be assailed in this controversy, let the
inquisition extend to a few blustering, but ignorant dupes of the
artful and designing in your city [Baltimore], and it will be found
that they are not quite as invulnerable as they have imagined.
Should justice and humanity compel me to engage in this busi-
ness, I shall undertake nothing but what I can prove in courts of
law, civil or ecclesiastical." Suffice it to say that this extreme
measure was abandoned, if ever more seriously entertained than
as a menace of terror.1

Dr. John Emory, assistant Book Agent in New York and one
of the editors of the Methodist Magazine, announced his purpose
to reply to McCaine's "History and Mystery." Care was taken
that Reformers removing to Baltimore should be excluded, as was
the case with John Gephart, who, with a clean certificate and the
indorsement of his leader, came to the city from Cumberland,
Md., and was refused admission by Hanson on the sole ground
that he was a subscriber to the Mutual Bights. (See Vol. IV.
pp. 118-122.) A meeting was called at Watters's meeting-house
in Harford County, Md., Rev. Benjamin Richardson (local),
Chairman, and W. D. Lee, Secretary, who denounced the suspen-
sion of Dorsey and formed a Union Society. A large meeting of
members of Norfolk and Princess Anne, Va., churches was held
in the Baptist church in Norfolk, November 2, composed of such
men as Rev. John French and Rev. Thomas Blunt, Seth Foster,
and J. J. Burroughs. They passed resolutions of sympathy with
the suspended and expelled, and sent delegates to the impending
Reform Convention. In New Orleans, La., a meeting of male
members was held in Gravier Street church, October 9, and
formed a Union Society; the officers were John Allison, Patrick
Thomason, F. Reynolds, W. M. Goodrich, and Wm. N. Wallace.
The associated friends of Reform in Philadelphia assembled
November 14, with Dr. Isaac James, Chairman, and William
Whiteside, Secretary, and placed themselves on record. " Neale, ''
H. B. Bascom, published in the periodical a paper of eight pages,
"A Plea for Reform," of great strength. In Louisville, Ky., a
meeting of local preachers and members was held, July 28, and
a Union Society formed; the officers and leaders were James F.

1 Brown's " Itinerant Life," p. 163. The Bishop was Enoch George.

MANY " UNION SOCIETIES " NOW FORMED

137

Overstreet, Eev. James Ward, W. S. Spurrier, James Harrison,
Eev. Philip W. Taylor, Eev. Matthew Nelson, Samuel Dickin-
son, Mann Butler, Hooper Evans, Rev. James Hutchinson,
Henry C. Dorsey, and John D. Locke. In Burlington, Vt., a
Society was formed November 24, with Nathaniel Gage, Presi-
dent, Truman Seymour, Secretary, Justis Byington, Luther
Chamberland, and Daniel Norton, with the officers, Correspond-
ing Committee. At Greenfield, 0., William Hughey notifies the
Eeformers of the organization of a Society, October 11. Thus,
in the teeth of expulsions and provoked by them, the movement
continued to spread ; but it will be seen that the unequal contest,
following all history, ended in the triumph of power — under the
crucial test of a new organization, without property and without
cooperation, except from the fire-tried and true, many honest
sympathizers fading away when it came to sundering the religious
and social and family ties that held them to the Church of their
birth and education and salvation.

In pursuance of the call a General Convention of Eeformers
was held in Baltimore in the Lutheran church on Lexington
Street near Paca, November 15, 1827. Rev. Nicholas Snethen
was made temporary Chairman, and Gideon Davis, Secretary.
The following brethren it was found had been appointed, or
elected, as delegates : * —

Ohio

Eev. Archibald Hawkins1
Eev. Moses M. Henkle 1
Eev. David McMasters 2
Eev. James Towler 2
Eev. Daniel Inskeep
Eev. Thomas Scott
Eev. Evert Eichman 2
Dr. Shadrach Bostwjck 2
Stephen B. Cleaveland1

William Disney J
William B. Evans
Alexander Sutherland
John Strickler
William Griffith
Thomas McEver
Dr. James T. Johnson
Benson Goldsberry
Stephen Bell2

Joseph K. Owens, Esq.1

New York

David Ayres, Esq.

* " Proceedings of the General Convention of Delegates from the Members and
Local Preachers of the Methodist Episcopal Church Friendly to Reform, Assem-
bled in the First English Evangelical Church in the City of Baltimore, November
1">, 1S27." Baltimore. Printed by John T. Toy, 1827. 8vo. 36 pp. Five thousand
copies printed.

1 These were present in person.

2 These gave excuses for absence. Considering the difficulties and expense of
travel in that day it will be seen that the attendance was as large as could have
been expected.

138

HISTOBY OF METHODIST REFORM

District of Columbia

Rev. William Lamphier 1
Gideon Davis 1

William King1
Nathaniel Brady x

North Carolina

Eev. William W.Hill i
Rev. William Harris1

Rev. Thomas Moore
Augustus Claibourne

Pennsylvania

Rev. Charles Avery J
Rev. Anthony A. Palmer1
William S. Stockton 1
John Mecasky l
John S. Furey 1
James Kelch 1
James McKim 1

Patrick Leonard
William Scholey
John Bissell
Samuel Bushfield
Henry Ebert
William Robinson
Samuel Hazlett

Virginia

Rev. Dr. John S. French1
Rev. Charles Roundtree 1
Rev. Richard Gilham l
Rev. Richard Latimore x
Rev. Dr. John B. Tilden1
Rev. William H. Coman
Rev. Benedict Burgess
Rev. David T. Ball

John Blount 1
John Jones x
Richard H. Ramsey
Robert Bailey, Esq.
Joseph Ball, Esq.
Dr. Andrew B. Wooley J
George O. F. Andrews 1
Jordan Edwards 1

Maryland

Western Shore

Rev. Dr. S. K. Jennings1
Rev. Alexander McCaine 1
Rev. William Bowden 1
Rev. Benjamin Richardson 1
Rev. Eli Henkle1
Rev. Nicholas Snethen a
John C happell 1
Thomas Mummy l
Philip S. Chappell i
Charles Jessop, Esq.1
Samuel Willis1
Hezekiah Linthicum x
Elias Crutchley l

Nicholas Durbin 1
Thomas W. Boyd i
William Bradford 1
Kidd Morsel
Rev. Daniel Chambers l
Rev. Slingsby Linthicum
John J. Harrod a
Ephraim Smith1
Biscoe Doxey J
Edward Hall
Jasper Peddicord 1
Richard A. Ridgeley 1
Ignatius Davis, Esq.

1 These were present in person.

r~

a o

j: a

■c a

u a

° =
oO

0 u

« 2

03

a'"
a j^
- o

w

.2 5

03

£ a o

^ h ui
^ o o

Si I

5£

■d

OJ,

0

D

J2

^

OJ

a

S

T3Q

l>

a

-0

a

'o

a

0
in

a

en

o

«u

u

a

*

^

-*j

tn

■d

a

it

0

no

w

>

a

0

BEFORM CONVENTION OF NOVEMBER, 1827 139

Eastern Shore

Eev. Francis Waters, D.D. Eev. Thomas Walker1

Kev. D. Watts William Quinton, Esq.1

Hon. Philemon B. Hopper Thomas Eoberts, Esq.

Edward Anderson, Esq. John Constable, Esq.1

William E. Stewart, Esq.1 William H. Waters1

John Wesley Bordley * Eev. Avra Melvin

John Turner1 William E. Durding

John Cropper Eichard Bayley, Esq.

It was resolved that the Convention be held with open doors.
After routine business the Convention went into an election of
President, and William E. Stewart, Esq., of Maryland was unani-
mously chosen; Henry Willis of Frederick County, Md., and
Luther J. Cox of Baltimore, Secretaries. Various committees
were appointed. There was preaching at night, and a tender was
made of the services of the ministers present to the preachers in
charge of the Methodist churches in Baltimore, Hanson and
Waugh, for the following Sabbath. They were not invited to
preach. After Friday the Convention met in St. John's Protes-
tant Episcopal church, Liberty Street.2 The material doings of
the body were summed up in the Memorial addressed to the Gen-
eral Conference, an Address to the General Church, and the ap-
pointment of Kev. Nicholas Snethen, Dr. Henry D. Sellers, and
the President of the Convention to present it. A Committee of
Vigilance and Correspondence was appointed: S. K. Jennings,
A. McCaine, John J. Harrod, Luther J. Cox, Wesley Starr, J. W.
Bordley, Nicholas Snethen, Francis Waters, and Eli Henkle. It
was unanimously resolved, on motion of Snethen, that the Re-
formers are not opposed to the Itinerancy, and that all articles
"which have a tendency injuriously affecting itinerancy" be ex-
cluded from the Mutual Bights. Snethen was invited to address
the Convention, which he did; and after religious service it ad-
journed, November 20. The Committee of Vigilance was author-
ized to call another Convention, should it be thought necessary.

1 These were present in person .

2 It had outlived its usefulness as such, and John Clark, a wealthy member, hav-
ing amortgage upon it and being favorably impressed with the cause of the Reform-
ers, led to the invitation to occupy it. Arrangements were subsequently made for
its purchase on easy terms and it became the First Methodist Protestant Church of
Baltimore, John Clark and others of the old membership having cast in their lot
with the new organization. Its subsequent varied history, having its cue in the
fact just mentioned, — its origin, — will receive attention later.

140 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

The Memorial consists of ten paragraphs. The first announces
the purpose of the Convention " petitioning upon the subject of
lay and local representation." The second disclaims any purpose
to " use any word or phrase " to injure the feelings of their oppo-
nents. The third suggests that a representation of local and lay
men be allowed in the General Conference. The fourth calls
attention to it as a matter of right. The fifth meets the objec-
tion that there is no analogy between civil and religious liberty.
The sixth notices the strange declaration that the classes named
have too much liberty already. The seventh specifies that it is
legislative liberty that is asked. The eighth meets the point
that such a representation can be claimed only as an expediency.
The ninth covers the alleged impracticability of it, and the
claim of a separate equal representation for the locality is waived
so that the number of laymen and local preachers shall equal the
number of itinerants in the General Conference, thus classing
the local preachers as laymen. The tenth asks that the old rule
of 1796, as to "sowing dissensions," shall be so modified as to
prevent its abuse by prejudging the intentions of brethren — they
prefer its abolition so that it be not open to favor constructive
treason. And, finally, it asks that the trial of members shall be
more in analogy with the civil law as to jury and right of challenge.
It will be seen that these points are in no sense "radical," and
yet expressed the demands of the Reformers at this date. The
Address to the Members of the Church 1 rehearses the history of
the Reform movement in England and America; and is a calm
and judicial appeal, and sets forth that they are not for hurried
reformation. It says: "We feel no disposition to hurry our
Methodist brethren into any premature determinations; all we
are disposed at present to insist on is the rationality and Christian
obligation they are under to give the subject a fair and persever-
ing examination. If we are mistaken in our views, we sincerely
wish to be set right; but we think it impossible for any people
to judge of the matters in dispute who neglect to examine into
the subject, or who refuse to give an impartial hearing to both
sides of the controversy " It makes a pamphlet of nine octavo
pages, and the sentences cited find an illustration in the testimony

1 The original draft of this Address as it came from the Committee is in the
writer's possession with its numerous amendments and emendations as made by
the Convention before its final passage. A number of these changes are made to
soften the rhetoric and avoid expressions and arguments which might be con-
strued as offensive by the opponents of Reform. This care and concession availed
nothing, however.

BOND'S PLOT THROUGH BR. GREEN 141

of Rev. George Brown, as to the partisan and one-sided judgment
of not a few of the high officials of the Church against Reform.
He rehearses a conversation he had with Bishop George, while
he was presiding elder, in which he justified his reading the
Mutual Rights. "'Bishop George,' said I, 'did you ever read
the Mutual Rights f 'Why, no,' said he; 'but brother Roszel
has, and he has told me all about it ; and he thinks it will do a
great injury to the Church. ' I then advised him not to make any
further opposition to that work until he would read it for himself.
The good Bishop was affected unto tears at what he considered
my obstinacy; and so the conversation closed." x

It must not escape notice that at the time of the expulsions the
Baltimore Union Society consisted of 133 male members, all of
whom were identified with the publication of the Mutual Rights.
Immediately after the expulsion of the eleven local preachers and
the twenty-two laymen, the Society sent the prosecuting Com-
mittee the names of thirty-three more on their own authorization,
with the promise that when they had disposed of these as many
more names would be furnished, until the whole Society was
covered. It was not, however, for the want of information that
the Committee paused in their work of expulsion, despite the
inconsistency of the act of selecting thirty-three as guilty, who
were so in no other sense than the remaining one hundred, who,
by their omission, were allowed innocent.2 One, and the prin-
cipal, reason of the surcease was the Machiavellian policy of Dr.
Bond, who, soon after the adjournment of the Reform Convention,
surreptitiously set on foot another attempt to compromise the
difference. In the " Narrative and Defence " much is made of the
allegation of Dr. Jennings that Dr. Bond was the prime mover in
the " under plot " to restore the expelled if they would come to
the terms proposed to them. In the "Narrative " he quite indig-
nantly denies the paternity of it, as he subsequently concealed
his connection with a collateral plot to accomplish the same end,
though, as already found, confessing with pride the authorship
of the business in after years.

The collateral plot developed by the appearance in Baltimore,
early in January, 1828, of Dr. J. C. Green of Virginia, a promi-
nent member of the Church, who interviewed Dr. Jennings, pro-
posing substantially the same conditions of restoration of the
expelled. He was so plausible, and professing to be acting on
his own motion, at first his approaches were entertained; but dis-

1 " Itinerant Life," p. 127. 2 Paris's " History," pp. 233, 234.

142 HISTOBY OF METHODIST REFORM

coveries followed which unmasked the scheme as having the same
source with the first attempt to compromise the Eeformers. A
series of letters passed between them which are preserved in the
"Narrative and Defence," and, finally, broke off with no better
result than the former. In the conference room attached to the
Light Street church, which was the usual place of these private
gatherings, as of the trials of the Eeformers, a note was found,
which had been carelessly left upon the floor, bearing date the
same as Dr. Green's letter to the Quarterly Conference of the
station, asking for a suspension of further proceedings until he
could interview Dr. Jennings ; and this note was to apprise Dr.
Bond of Dr. Green's arrival in the city, and the request for a
private interview at "dinner, or soon thereafter." It was held
as proof of complicity, though he affirmed to Dr. Jennings that
he had come "unsolicited to do so by any one." Yet in the Quar-
terly Conference referred to, after he had a long night interview
with him, Dr. Bond arose and asked, "Who is this Dr. Green?
Is he the man who preached," etc.1 It will be noted that this
second attempt to conciliate the Eeformers, without conceding
the slightest to them, took place within a month after a meeting
was called of Methodists at the old Baptist church, corner Front
and Pitt streets, where the former meeting of members was held
to indorse the Annual Conference action in the suspension of
Dorsey. Care was taken to make it a meeting of male members
not in connection with the Union Society, with the same guileful
intent, it must be acknowledged, that led their opponents to hold
their meeting with the boast that members of the Union Society
had not been invited, that is, to give the appearance of a strong
constituency in favor or opposed to Eeform aside from the active
participants.

It was held December 12, 1827, with Francis Coates as Chair-
man and Dr. William Zollickoffer as Secretary; and it appointed
a committee of seven to make a report to an adjourned meeting,
held on the 13th of December in the same place. The committee
was Moses M. Henkle, John J. Harrod, William C. Spindler,
William Eusk, William Zollickoffer, Eobert B. Varden, and
George Evans. Of this number Harrod alone was a member of
the Union Society and, in consequence, declined to serve. It is
called, in travesty of their opponents' meeting, "a very large
meeting." How large the writer cannot determine, as no data
are furnished. It adopted the report of the committee with but

i Jennings's "Exposition," and "The Narrative and Defence."

MEETINGS AND COUNTER MEETINGS 143

two dissenting votes, and these were given by persons not entitled
to vote in this meeting. The notice which was sent to the
churches for its call was openly denounced by Dr. Bond after
reading it, " that such a meeting could only be an attempt to sub-
stitute mob law for the discipline of the Church." The report was
ordered printed, and is a cogent review of the proceedings against
Reformers, the exclusion of fourteen local preachers from the
annual plan of appointments, for no other reason than their
sympathy with Dennis B. Dorsey; the weak explanation of the
agents in it, that the preacher in charge had "the undoubted
right to select such preachers as he thinks expedient to employ; "
the character of the committees of trial; their confessed prejudg-
ment, one of them, Armstrong, admitting that he was so preju-
diced against Wesley Starr, one of the expelled, that he was
unable to do him justice, and so preferred not to be on his case;
but was, nevertheless, retained, and when the accused examined
these jurors as to the matter of their prejudgment, the chairman,
Rev. James M. Hanson, pronounced the questions "out of
order," and proceeded with the mock trials. It is a searching
inquiry into the disciplinary law under which the offenders were
arraigned, and the method of trial shown to be utterly unamen-
able to fairness, and consistent with nothing but a foregone pur-
pose to expel, making out the case where evidence was deficient.
In the whole history of "moral discipline," as administered in
the Church, never before or since have there been such flagrant
instances of lawless expulsions. The Address was dated Janu-
ary 1, 1828. Shinn issued an Appendix to his "Finishing
Stroke" in rejoinder, and other masterful reviews were made
by Union Societies, thus flooding the community, now the only
impartial readers, with irrefragable proofs that "moral disci-
pline " in the Church was based, not upon law and evidence, but
upon power.

The Baltimore District Conference met, December 26, 1827,
in the M'Kendrean Sabbath-school room, Lombard Street, with
Rev. Joseph Frye, Presiding Elder, as President; and the
appeals of the eleven suspended local preachers were to come
before it. There were a number of colored members of the Con-
ference, and it was ascertained by the Bond party that unless
these voted the friends of the suspended preachers would have a
slight majority in the Conference. It was therefore resolved, at
any risk, to adjourn the District Conference and not suffer the
appeals to be heard, but to force the appellants to bring their

144 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

cases before the Quarterly Conference, in which their opponents
would have a clear majority. The rule made by the General
Conference of 1824 as to the colored men voting, read, "Our
colored preachers and official members shall have the privileges
which are usual to others in the district and quarterly confer-
ences, where the usages of the country do not forbid it." It was
done in concession to the Methodist officials in the slave states,
and such colored members in consequence had never voted in
Maryland. The issue was made in the District Conference on a
motion that the suspended preachers had no right to vote while
their appeals were pending, and the Chair ruled affirmatively.
An appeal was taken, and the vote stood as follows: Yeas —
John Daughday, John Chalmers, Z. McComas, T. Perkins, L.
Elbert, J. Shane, S. Williams, D. McJilton, E. Hall, S. Gore,
1ST. Harden, Jacob King, T. Bassford, J. Lazenby, J. W Harris,
Geo. Summers, T. E. Bond, J. Watters, and G. Bidgely (nine-
teen). Nays — S. K. Jennings, A. McCaine, J. B. Williams,
D. E. Beese, T. C. French, W. Kesley, L. J Cox, T. McCor-
mick, J. S. Beese, J. Bobb, B. T. Boyd, W. Bowden, Slingsby
Linthicum, L. Selby, B. Hood, J. Day, George Wells, N. Hos-
kinson, B. H. Merrikin, and John Sharpley (twenty). The
nays composed nearly all the Conference in Baltimore, the yeas
being principally from the county.

On the following morning, when the Conference assembled, the
chair again pronounced against the right of the suspended
preachers to vote ; but, knowing that he was unsustained by the
usage, it was predetermined to adjourn the Conference by count-
ing the colored voters. Accordingly, a motion to adjourn was
made — debate peremptorily cut off at the suggestion of Dr.
Bond and sustained by the chair, and — the vote put while a
number of members were remonstrating — declared carried;
nine colored votes giving the yeas twenty-eight, as against the
twenty nays of the white members. The negative at once entered
a Protest, and when it was discovered that the Secretary, Chal-
mers, had made a minute that only fifteen voted negatively, a
further certificate was filed, signed by twenty in denial. Several
colored preachers did not vote, despite the ruling in their favor,
knowing that it was against all Maryland usage that they should
do so. It was afterward ascertained by the confession of one of
them that Bishop George had advised that they vote to accom-
plish the object. The " Narrative and Defence " makes a differ-
ent showing as to what was done ; but as this involves questions

ELEVEN PREACHERS FINALLY "EXPELLED" 145

of veracity, the critical reader must take the evidence on both
sides and judge for himself. None of the expelled laymen took
an appeal, and on the organization of the Quarterly Conference
the suspended preachers took no notice of it, taking the ground
that the rightful judicatory, the District Conference, before which
their appeal should have been heard, had been violently and
unlawfully dissolved. In consequence the Quarterly Conference
proceeded to consider their cases as though appeal had been
made, and the charges sustained against the ten local preachers
with the proviso : " unless he withdraw forthwith from the Union
Society, and promise not to be engaged hereafter in any publica-
tion that inveighs against the discipline, or government, or speak
evil of ministers; and signify his intention before the final
adjournment of this conference."1 None being present or ap-
pealing, they were recorded, Expelled. Alexander McCaine was
Expelled, no proviso being made in his case. Subsequently
James M. Hanson notified the laymen that they were Expelled.2
Prior to the meeting of the Quarterly Conference, the ten sus-
pended local preachers sent a Protest to James M. Hanson, giving
their reasons for refusing to appeal to that body; and a Peply
having been published to the first Protest of the preachers, a
Keview of it was issued by "The Authors of the Protest." Re-

1 See " Narrative and Defence," Jennings's " Exposition," Mutual Rights, for
the evidence.

2 The attempt has been made to justify the blatant record of " Expelled " (see
note in previous volume anent it) on the ground that it was the common expres-
sion used by the Annual Conferences to cover all cases both of mal- and mis-feas-
ance. It is largely true of the early days, but, as was shown in the first volume,
at least two exceptions exist to this rule, one in the minutes of 1816, an expulsion
with the qualifying note " for refusing to subscribe to the second article of the
doctrines of our Church," and the other in 1826, which could not have been for-
gotten so soon as 1827, " Deprived of his official standing in the Methodist Epis-
copal Church," which exceptions in either case were manifestly made to shield
the character of these two brethren with posterity that they were not excluded
for immorality. But in the case of the Reformers, preachers and laymen, no
such effort was made to protect them with posterity, though the admission was
freely made that their moral characters were unimpeachable, by qualifying the
term " Expelled," with any explanation. Indeed, it is quite clear from subsequent
events that it was intended to smirch them, or at least to leave it open to infer-
ence that they were immoral as well as contumacious. It was a grievance under
which they labored to the day of their deaths, and ever since, except it may be in
the case of Rev. Thomas McCormick, who lived to be a nonogenarian in the
Methodist Protestant Church. Late in life an event occurred that officially recog-
nized him as a minister, as will be seen later. This act has never been condoned
by the Methodist Episcopal Church in Baltimore, or by any of her historians, and
until it is done, fidelity to the memory of these " Expelled " brethren demands
that <t shall not be forgotten by their posterity aud the historians of Reform.

VOL. II — l

146 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

ferring to the allegations in the "Reply to the Protest," one para-
graph will give the gist of the matter. They say " the brethren
had been charged with 'evil speaking,' etc., and 'that they have
yet to learn that they are not guilty of a violation of the laws of
God and the Discipline.' It is true they were charged, but not
with immorality, their prosecutors declaring on the trials that
they had nothing against the i moral or religious standing' of
those against whom they had brought charges. And we chal-
lenge the authors of the Reply to give to the public the words
and sentences which our brethren have published in the Mutual
Bights, that are 'violations of the laws of God and of the Disci-
pline.' Until this is done, we say, the insinuation is utterly
unworthy of public confidence. Baltimore, January 11, 1828."
The Protests and the Replies having been published in the daily
secular papers, the impression upon the Christian community of
the city was so unfavorable to the anti-reformers, that now, for
the first time, to shield the unwarrantable proceedings from gen-
eral condemnation, these insinuations of immorality were inter-
jected,1 and were often repeated afterward, notably by Dr. Bond,
as a justification of the excommunication of preachers and lay-
men who stood so high in the community for purity and integrity.

In these days of frequent interdenominational exchange of
membership, the general level of spirituality in the Protestant
churches, and the absence in the pulpits of sharp lines of doc-
trinal differences, it is impossible to appreciate what expulsion
meant to these Methodists, most of them of many years' stand-
ing, from the only Church exhibiting the doctrinal teaching and
furnishing the means of grace to which they had been accustomed,
and without which religious life seemed impossible. Once more
Paternalism had assumed its fearful prerogative of coercion, and
made itself responsible for a new Methodist organization; and
yet these brethren still refused to entertain such a purpose.
Surely the ensuing General Conference would give redress and
forestall further excisions and withdrawals. No longer welcome
even as visitors at their old church homes, something must be
done as an expedient to prevent social disintegration among
themselves. The wise counsels of Snethen, Shinn, Stockton,
and others of the leaders were never more emergent than now.

Dennis B. Dorsey received pecuniary assistance from a num-
ber of sources, and the Baltimore Conference itself allowed him
the stipend usual to a superannuated minister for the first year,

1 See note 2 on p. 145.

WHAT "EXPULSION" MEANT TO METHODISTS 147

it may be safely said not willingly, but the claim could not well
be ignored for the nonce, and he promptly gave them public
credit for it. The sum was less than a hundred dollars. He
remained in Baltimore slowly recovering from his illness, and
eking out a subsistence where the charity of his friends failed
of meeting his requirements as a disabled married man. The
expelled preachers and laymen were greeted with words of cheer
from their fellow-Reformers all over the country. As presenting
a fact not heretofore named, the Union Society of Kensington
(a district of Philadelphia) passed resolutions denouncing the
Baltimore expulsions, signed: John Vaughan, Chairman, G. J.
Hamilton, Secretary, January 17, 1828. Nearly all the old
Societies planted themselves firmly by a similar action, and a
number of new Societies were formed under the impulse of the
expulsions.

CHAPTER IX

Inchoate organization of expelled Reformers and their friends — Withdrawal of
female members and their plea — More Union Societies — Emory's "Defence of
our Fathers " — Bascom President of Union College, Pa. — The General Confer-
ence of 1828; prominent members; Dr. George Brown and Bishop Hedding;
the true story — Reform and anti-reform contest in the General Conference on
the appeal of Dorsey and Pool; guileful compromise proposed for restoration
of all the expelled; what came of it — Dr. George Brown's graphic picture of
the defensive speech of Asa Shinn of the Reformers before the General Confer-
ence; its marvellous effects; delay of the vote secured and another dark lantern
caucus secured a bare majority denying the appeals ; full account — Final dis-
position of the "suspended resolutions" on the eldership question — Emory's
tergiversation — Change of the Restrictive Rule for altering the organic law.

After careful consideration the initial step for their social
preservation as Methodists was taken by a number of the expelled
Reformers and their friends, December 23, 1827, at a called meet-
ing, probably at the residence of Dr. Jennings, as it was there
the mothers, wives, and daughters of the expelled convened a week
later for action. As the result of their deliberations the follow-
ing Instrument was formulated, " under which the expelled mem-
bers and ministers in Baltimore have united, in order to pray
together, to receive the word of exhortation, and to watch over
one another in love, that they may help each other to work out
their salvation." It reads as follows: "We the undersigned,
formerly members of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the city
of Baltimore, having been excluded from the fellowship of that
body, by what we conceive to be an unjustifiable process, based
upon insufficient charges, and those charges not sustained by com-
petent testimony, have, for the present, agreed to unite together
as a society of original Methodists, under the 'General Rules of
the United Societies ' prepared by the Revs. John and Charles
Wesley. Our object is to wait and see whether the present
abuses in the administration of the government will be corrected.
If they should, and freedom of inquiry and public discussion be
permitted in the Methodist Episcopal Church, it will afford us
pleasure to return, provided we can do so without relinquishing

14K

*%

hgp ffk

gi^

WESLEY STARR.

LEVU^-RjmsJvr-

JOHN S. REESE.

PROVISIONAL ORGANIZATION OF REFORMERS 149

the opinions for which we were excluded; namely, an honest,
and, as we believe, an enlightened conviction that the present
form of government in the Methodist Episcopal Church, so far
as it precludes the grand principle of Representation, and confines
all legislative, executive, and judicial powers to the itinerant
ministry, is unscriptural and anti-Christian, and that reform in
the government of said Church is necessary, in order to its essen-
tial and permanent prosperity. With these views we solemnly
unite in the name of the Great Head of the Church, our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ, receiving the Holy Scriptures as our guide;
and for prudential purposes adopting as an instrument of union
the 'General Eules ' of Messrs. John and Charles Wesley, with
such subsequent regulations as our peculiar circumstances may
from time to time require.

" John Chappell Thomas Jarrett

John J. Harrod John Gephart, Jr.

Wesley Starr John P. Howard

John Kennard Levi E. Keese

William K. Boyle Lambert Thomas

Arthur Emmerson Samuel Jarrett

Ebenezer Strahen James R. Forman

John H. W Hawkins George Northerman

Thomas Patterson Samuel Thompson

Samuel Krebs Samuel Guest

Thomas Parson John P. Paul."

A month later, January 26, 1828, "We the undersigned, elders,
deacons, and licensed preachers, subscribe our names, respect-
ively, to the foregoing instrument, approving the objects con-
templated therein.

"Samuel K. Jennings. Luther J. Cox

Daniel E. Reese John S. Reese

James R Williams John C. French

William Kesley Reuben T. Boyd."
Thomas McCormick

December 31, 1827, " At a meeting of female members of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, convened at the Eev. Dr. Jen-
nings's, for the purpose of taking into consideration the most
advisable course to be pursued by the wives and friends of those
members of said Church who have been expelled, and of those
ministers who have been suspended by the official members of
the Baltimore station, for the salts of reform. On motion, re-

150 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

solved that the members of this meeting deeply regret the neces-
sity of withdrawing from the Methodist Episcopal Church, yet
from a conviction of duty we do hereby resolve to withdraw from
said Church when our husbands, fathers, or friends shall have
been expelled. A committee of nine wa,s appointed to report at
a meeting to be called to hear and act on it : Rebecca Hall, Presi-
dent; Mary Ann Woods, Secretary." January 7, 1828, another
meeting was held, the report received, and a Declaration adopted,
which rehearses the measures of expulsion ; that they are impelled
to withdraw solely by the existing difficulties in the Church, and
that they have not been influenced to the course proposed by " our
husbands, relatives, or friends." A Letter of Withdrawal was
prepared and signed by these heroic and godly women to this
effect : —

" Rev. James M. Hanson : We the undersigned, female mem-
bers of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the city of Baltimore,
feel ourselves under the necessity of addressing you on a subject
peculiarly painful. For a series of years we have been endeavor-
ing in our humble sphere to serve God and make our way to
heaven. And long since the Methodist Episcopal Church became
the home of our choice, where we had fondty hoped to dwell in
the peaceful enjoyment of the means of grace and the ordinances
of Christianity to the end of life. In this Church our dearest
Christian associations and religious friendships were formed and
nourished. Our hopes, our fears, our wishes, all were identified
with those of the Church of our choice. Around all her ordi-
nances, her services, her ministers, our best affections were en-
twined; and for her peace and prosperity our daily prayers were
offered to a throne of grace. This preference was not given to
the Methodist Episcopal Church because we considered her gov-
ernment more perfect than that of others ; for indeed we were no
more careful to inquire into that subject than our preachers were
to give us instruction in it; but our preference grew out of the
purity of her doctrines, the piety of her members, the excellency
of her moral discipline, and her itinerant plan. And though
recent events have led us to examine more closely than hereto-
fore the Methodist Discipline, and this examination has resulted
in a conviction of its defectiveness in many particulars, yet we
could have borne those comparatively trivial inconveniences, and
could have lived happily in the bosom of the Church all our days,
nor had we thought of forsaking her communion till death, but

MOTHERS IN ISRAEL WITHDRAW

151

for recent occurrences which have taken place under your admin-
istration and superintendence. But, Sir, to see a large number
of our highly esteemed local preachers excluded the pulpits,
arraigned, condemned, and excommunicated, and the seal of
official silence set upon the lips which have so often conveyed
heavenly consolation to our minds and hearts ; to see our beloved
class leaders torn from us, and deprived of their official standing,
and a large number of our lay -brethren expelled without a crime ;
and to see the unwarrantable measures by which these distressing
results have been effected, is too painful for us! In short, to
find our dear companions, fathers, brothers, children, and friends
treated as criminals and enemies, prosecuted, suspended, and ex-
pelled; denounced as backsliders and disturbers of the peace; and
to be ourselves treated coldly and distantly by our former friends
and by our pastors; and all for a mere difference of opinion about
church government, is more than we feel bound in Christian
charity longer to endure; and we therefore feel it our duty, in
the fear of God, though with emotions of poignant sorrow and
with aching hearts, to withdraw from the Church of our choice
and fondest attachments. To this painful resort we are driven
by the measures you have taken against our friends and brethren.
To remain in the Church under the circumstances now existing,
would be to evince a want of filial, connubial, and fraternal
attachment to our persecuted friends and a want of self-respect.
We therefore request you to consider us as withdrawn from the
Methodist Episcopal Church, and to furnish us a joint or indi-
vidual certificate of our acceptable standing, as soon as con-
venient.

" Hannah L. Harrod
Catharine Mummy
Guinilda Mummy
Mary Kennard
Elizabeth Kennard
Sarah Krebs
Jane Thomas
Elizabeth Williams
Sarah Williams
Elizabeth Taylor
Mary Williams
Frances Williams
Catharine Williams
Hannah Jennings
Mary Owings
Elizabeth Crouch

Elinor Gephart
Maria Paul
Elizabeth Eorman
Phillippa Starr
Eachel Hawkins
Elizabeth Baxley
Susan Guest
Sarah Emmerson
Isabella Northerman
Anna Jarrett
Euth Keese
Rebecca R. Reese
Margaret Reese
Mary Reese
Margaret Patterson
Mary French

Sydney Boyd
Rebecca Jane Roberts
Lucy Eore
Mary Jane Thomas
Jemima Jones
Hannah Martin
Letitia M. Martin
Maria M. Martin
Maria Cox
Mary Meads
Mary Ann Woods
Catharine Wallace
Elizabeth Britt
Mary Ann Valiant
Elizabeth Valiant."

152 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

" (Sister Anna G. Chappell, the wife, and Sarah A. Chappell,
the sister, of our aged brother, John Chappell, had withdrawn
two days previous to the first meeting.)"

Nothing need be added to this touching story. All that expul-
sion meant to the laymen, withdrawal meant to these lay-women.
They were marked Withdrawn, and were content with treatment
as lenient.

At a meeting of Eeformers April 1, 1828, the title of the
Association under which they banded together was determined to
be: "The Associated Methodist Eeformers." Kules and regula-
tions were adopted, one of which calls for citation: "On the
admission of females, the female members shall be entitled to
vote." In the old Church they had been class leaders, and con-
sequently members of the Quarterly Conference under the law,
though the writer meets no recorded instance where the recogni-
tion was demanded. Thus it is seen that in elemental Methodist
Protestantism suffrage was without sex. It had been well, per-
haps, if it had received Constitutional formulation afterward.
It was not without advocates, but narrower views prevailed, as
they did in other things, from which, if a departure had been
made, it would have furthered ultimately the cause of Eeform in
Methodism. The reasons for the circumscription will appear
later. The Associated members were 119 in number. Most of
the names have been embalmed in the lists given, but in addition
a number of others should be recorded : John, Catharine, Sarah,
and Ann Guishard, John J. Thompson, Charles Looney, John
Coates, John Fountain, Charles Watts, Mary Watts, Ann Murray,
Sarah Peal, Mary Whiting, Elizabeth C. Henkle, Eebecca, Mary,
and Frances E. Hall, Matilda Kennard, Frances Bisher, Ann
Many, Ann Clark, Mary Looney, Sarah M. B. Sweeney, Ann Bell,
Mary Fountain, Ann Hance, Susan Breden, Harriet Barnes, Hester
Taylor, Lucretia Coates, Elizabeth Carter, and Mary Dennison.1

At this stage it may be well to give two citations from an
address which was intended to have been delivered defensively
before the District Conference by Dr. Jennings, but he was fore-
stalled by its unlawful adjournment. The first relates to the
gist of the Eeformers' offence, as the committee of prosecution
phrased it: "But the prosecution insisted 'that every religious
community has a right to form its own discipline,' and, said

1 "Instrument of Association together with the General Rules of Messrs. John
and Charles Wesley, and the additional regulations prepared by the Associated
Methodist Reformers in Baltimore." Baltimore. Matchett, Printer. 18'_>8. 8vo. 9pp.

ARGUMENTATIVE DEFENCE OF REFORMERS 153

Mr. Israel, 'its members are not at liberty to disturb it.' Is the
charge, in view of this particular, raised against us that we have
denied the right every religious community has to form its own
discipline? When did we do this? The truth is, this is the
right for which we are contending. But they will say the charge
is for 'disturbing it.' And have we disturbed it? According to
their own showing it is by calling for a lay delegation; that is,
for insisting on Mr. Israel's own true position, that 'every reli-
gious community has a right to form its own discipline, ' that we
have given them so great offence. But it was so alleged, that
while we remain members of the church, we have no right to
form and be members of the Union Society? This is a new
charge. And we beg leave to ask what law has been broken by
our becoming members of the Union Society? Is any law of the
Bible or any rule of the discipline broken by it? Where shall we
find such a law?" And second, as bearing upon the withdrawal
of these women from the church : " Wretched indeed must be the
state of a community when the fidelity of its members is con-
structed into treason against the body! One of the occasions
stated by the prosecution for the adoption of their course against
us is our unyielding adherence to the Church! Let it then be
written with a pen of iron, ' they say they will not withdraw from
the church I ' Where is the spirit of schism so often imputed to
us? Surely, brethren, not on the part of the accused, but on the
part of the accusers; . . . yes, brethren, our prosecutors have be-
come our advocates; have acquitted us of the charge of schism,
and assumed it to themselves. They are engaged in making a
separation which is of no ordinary kind, a schism which is in-
tended with the most unnatural violence to sever from the body
many of its most devoted members." 1

This much of the argumentative literature of the Reformers as
offsetting the large citation made of their opponents' method of
reasoning. It is of a piece with the warp and woof of all that
could be offered, from Dr. Bond to feebler champions, and must
answer as an example of all. The justice of the cause so appealed
to the conscience and honor of right-thinking Methodists, that
other Union Societies were formed in the teeth of the expulsions

1 An Address intended when written to have been delivered before the District
Conference of the Baltimore District, by Samuel K. Jennings, M.D. Its object
was to show that the prosecutions which had been instituted against the local
preachers, etc., for publishing the Mutual Rights, etc., are unreasonable and
unjust and ought to be dismissed. Baltimore. Printed by Samuel Moss. 1828.
8vo. 24 pp.

154 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

and in prospect of their own excommunication. On Great Falls'
circuit, Baltimore County, Md., a Society of great influence was
formed, with Charles Jessop, Esq., President; Rev. Daniel
Chambers, Vice; Rev. Anion Richards, Secretary; Edward Hall,
Treasurer; and Rev. Eli Henkle, E. Hall, and Samuel Willis,
Corresponding Committee. February 14, 1828, a number of
members of Ebenezer station, Washington, D. C, assembled at
Wheat's schoolhouse, and organized a Union, with Rev. J. B.
Ferguson, Chairman, and Peter M. Pierson, Secretary, with W. D.
Aikin and Thomas Wheat as a committee. The Steubenville
and Cincinnati societies were greatly augmented, and passed ring-
ing resolutions of cheer to Dorsey and the Baltimore expelled.
It may be that the bold front of the Reformers called for an inter-
mission of trials and exclusions until after the General Confer-
ence ; intimidation did not accomplish its purpose, so both parties
largely held a truce and slept upon their arms until May, 1828,
except that at the meeting of the Baltimore Annual Conference in
April, 1828, at Carlisle, Pa., charges were preferred against Rev.
W- C. Pool; he was tried and expelled, the methods employed
not differing essentially from those in the case of Dorsey; but it
linked his name with that of the latter immemorially as " martyrs
for the principle of a lay-representation in the legislative depart-
ment of the Methodist Episcopal Church government."1

The expelled also addressed a Memorial to the Annual Con-
ference in which they recite their case and ask the Conference to
" interpose and restore us to the enjoyment of our former standing
in the Church of our choice and our affections, and from which we
have been unnaturally severed; " and that "justice and propriety
demand your immediate investigation of the official conduct of
the Rev. James M. Hanson and of the Rev. Joseph Frye, in refer-
ence to our particular cases." The Conference made answer by
resolutions that as the appellants " did not obey the citations of
the Church to appear before inferior judicatories . . they are not
entitled to come before higher judicatories, either as appellants
or complainants," that "to sanction a contrary course of proceed-
ings would be, in the judgment of the Conference, subversive of
wholesome and sound discipline," and hence "decline to take
further cognizance of the subjects." The answer bears the liter-
ary and other ear-marks of Dr. Emory, who took an active part

1 Jennings's " Exposition," pp. 219-223, as well as the Mutual RiqhU and Chris-
tian Intelligencer for 1828, give a full account of the particulars of Pool's trial
and expulsion.

REFOBMERS APPEAL TO GENERAL CONFERENCE 155

in the trial of Pool and in the review of the Memorial of the
Expelled. Thus their appeal was summarily dismissed, no
account being taken of the irregular methods of the prosecution
and the reasons of the expelled for declining to appear before
judicatories which had confessedly already decided their cases —
indeed, no inquiry seems to have been made into the conduct of
the prosecution whatever. The irregularities of the expelled
exclude them from redress, admitting that they were irregular;
the irregularities of the prosecution are not even inquired into,
their irregularity being patent under the law.

But one other method was left them : an appeal to the General
Conference, which was at once formulated. It is a calm, judicial,
and respectful petition, in which they rehearse the whole story
of the Eeform with brevity, as steps leading to the unprecedented
method of their investigation and expulsion. They ask with
unanswerable force : " Who ever heard of the organization of a
prosecuting committee in the Methodist Episcopal Church con-
sisting of seven members? When was there ever such a convo-
cation of members of the Church for the purpose of arraying
themselves as prosecutors against another party in the Church?
The measure was so new, and so inconsistent with all our former
acquaintance with Methodism, that we were apprehensive our
prosecutors had been encouraged thereto by some persons in high
authority in the Church. . . Finally, brethren, your memo-
rialists respectfully represent to the General Conference that, as
we have been expelled from the Church, contrary, as we believe,
to Scripture and the Discipline, and which expulsion has been
and is still painful to our hearts, we do hereby request your
highly respectable body to take such measures as in your wisdom
shall restore us to the Church of our former fellowship, and receive
with us those who have withdrawn on our account, on principles
which shall secure to us and the Church the liberty of speech and
of the press, without sanctioning the licentiousness of either," etc.

Meantime the announced review of McCaine's "History and
Mystery," by John Emory, made its appearance in November or
December, 1827, and created a sensation in the Church as much
more intense as its circulation under the official imprimatur of
the Book Concern was necessarily greater than that of McCaine's
pamphlet, which was confined to a single edition of probably not
over one thousand copies, judging from its rarity to-day, as the
opponents of Reform used diligence in destroying every copy they
could control. It was hailed with delight by the supporters of

156 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

the old regime as vindicating the " Fathers " in everything against
the alleged aspersions, slanders, misrepresentations, and perver-
sions of fact made by McCaine, and it engendered a prejudice,
not to say hatred, of his very name that followed him through
life by those who had never read the "History and Mystery,"
and, perhaps, never heard of his masterful " Defence of the Truth,"
which about a year after he gave to the press, and which was so
complete in its answer to Emory's "Defence of our Fathers"1
that he never attempted a pamphlet rejoinder. He offered some
strictures and made the correction of a few errors in his " Defence "
which were so palpable that his friends called for their elimina-
tion. This was done in an excusatory manner, not through the
Christian Advocate, of wide circulation, but through the Methodist
Review, 1830, p. 217, of very limited circulation, so that such
answer as he essayed never became known to any considerable
number in the Church, and justified the avowal of McCaine and
his friends that the "Defence of the Truth" had never been
answered, much less refuted. Nor was any serious attempt made
to so collocate the facts of early American Methodism as to spe-
ciously accomplish what Emory failed to do; to wit, make it
appear that Wesley was cognizant of and approved all the steps
that led to the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church
in 1784, and that he " recommended " specifically to that Confer-
ence the " Episcopal form of government," until it was undertaken
by Rev. Dr. Stevens in his " History of Methodism " 2 in 1859.
He devotes an entire chapter to it of seventeen pages, which was
republished as an appendix to Tyerman's "Life of Wesley,"
issued by the Harpers in 1872, it being universally accepted
as exhaustive of the argument on that side, and as offsetting
Tyerman, who, without knowing anything of McCaine's " History
and Mystery," thoroughly established the moral certainty that it
correctly represents the facts in the case. McCaine was twitted
because his " Defence of the Truth " did not appear in answer to

1 " A Defence of ' Our Fathers,' and of the original organization of the Mctho-
dist Episcopal Church against the Rev. Alexander McCaine, and others, with
Historical and Critical Notes on early American Methodism," by John Emory,
New York. Published by N. Bangs and J. Emory for the M. E. Church at the
Conference office, Crosby Street. Azor Hoyt, Printer. 1827. Svo. 92 pp. It
contains an Appendix, by N. Bangs, who took occasion to explain his views on
Dr. Coke's letter, and his idea of orders in the M. E. Church as set forth in his
" Methodist Episcopacy," issued about a year before against the opposition of
Soule, then Book Agent, with Bangs as assistant, for reasons evidently that it
makes admissions contrary to Soulo's notions of Episcopacy.

2 " History of Methodism," Vol. II. Chap. 7.

" DEFENCE OF OUB FATHEBS" BY EMOBY 157

Emory for more than a year. The facts are that when Emory's
pamphlet appeared, McCaine was in the South for his health, by
order of his physician, and could not devote himself to an answer
earlier; but this his enemies ignored.

Though the first volume has covered in divers places much of
the staple of the controversy, it seems necessary, now that all
three of the disputants, McCaine, Emory, and Stevens, have ex-
pended their strength, McCaine reviewing the case as late as
1850 in his " Letters on the Organization of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church," that a separate chapter should be given in this
work to a fair analysis of the ancient contention; for though
nothing really but a side issue in the controversy as to Lay-
Kepresentation in 1827-30, the truth of history demands that
the issue having been raised, it should be settled for or against
McCaine as the originator of it. It will best, however, preserve
the order of events, if the remainder of this chapter be devoted
to the General Conference of 1828, and so close this important
epoch in the history of Reform.

Only one other fact seems needful before proceeding to this
task. The Pittsburgh Conference had resolved upon establish-
ing a college at Uniontown, Pa., and as the buildings were
there already, under President Madison's liberality, these were
accepted ; and though Bascom was fully known as a pronounced
Reformer throughout that Conference, so inimical to Reform
in the main, he was elected President in 1827, and he labored
hard to establish it for two years. As has been found, it
was the method of the anti-reformers in the case of preachers
of eminent ability to win them from their Reform attachments
by promoting them, while weaker and unknown men were ex-
pelled for such an alliance. M. M. Henkle, the biographer of
Bascom, gives unwittingly a reason for the non-success of Bascom
in this enterprise, but which establishes the predicate that Reform
was then a powerful factor in the Church. Henkle says : " The
church controversy was just then at its height, and the dissentient
partisans would not harmonize in supporting an institution which
each party feared might fall into the hands of the other." He
also gives the true reason for Bascom's resignation, "The want
of adequate compensation had much influence in superinducing
Bascom's resignation is highly probable ; " and Henkle shows
that from 1814, oppressed with debt for himself and his father's
family, he was compelled to resort to devious shifts to extricate
himself for long years afterward.

158 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

The General Conference of 1828 met in Pittsburgh, Pa., May 1,
and was attended by Bishops M'Kendree, George, Roberts, Soule,
and Hedding; religious services by the senior Bishop. There
were strong men in the delegations, and a few of the pronounced
Reformers were elected by reason of their personal popularity.
It may be well to note the names of Nathan Bangs, John Emory,
Heman Bangs, and Daniel Ostrander from New York; George
Pickering, Wilbur Fisk, Daniel Dorchester from New England;
George Peck, Morgan Sherman, and Seth Mattison from Genesee ;
Henry Furlong, Asa Shinn, Henry B. Bascom, Thornton Fleming,
and Charles Elliott from Pittsburgh; Jacob Young, James B.
Finley, Greenbury R. Jones, and James Quinn from Ohio ; Peter
Cartwright, James Armstrong, and Samuel H. Thompson from
Illinois ; Thomas A. Morris, Peter Akers, and Richard Tidings
from Kentucky; James Gwin, James M'Ferrin, Robert Paine,
and Ashley B. Roszel from Tennessee; William Winans, John C.
Burress from Mississippi; James A. Andrew, William Capers,
Lovick Pierce, and Samuel Dunwody from South Carolina; Joseph
Carson, Peter Doub, and John Early from Virginia; Stephen G.
Roszel, Nelson Reed, Joshua Wells, Joseph Frye, Henry Smith,
John Davis, James M. Hanson, Beverly Waugh, Andrew Hemp-
hill, Job Guest, Marmaduke Pierce, and Christopher Frye from
Baltimore, — all now pronounced anti-reformers; Ezekiel Cooper,
Lawrence M'Combs, Charles Pittman, James Smith, Joseph Ly-
brand, and George Woolley from Philadelphia.

The Episcopal Address notes "the great and extensive revivals
of religion in the past three years," an unwitting testimony that
the agitation of Reform within the Church had not deteriorated
its spiritual power. The last year, " ending with this date, has
been peculiarly distinguished by the abundant outpouring of the
Holy Spirit, and the increase both in the ministry and member-
ship." It does not occur to them that this may be a token of the
Divine favor upon the movement to make its government more
scriptural, rational, and in accord with Christian manhood; and
the pertinence of this suggestion will appear when the church
historians give these same things as infallible signs that when
the Church was " defecated " of its Reform element, and later of
its Abolition element, the Divine approval was thereby put upon
the expulsive methods to shut them out. Inquiry is suggested
as to the "right of all the members to trial and appeal,
sacredly secured by the acts of the General Conference of 1808,"
and whether there is anything in the Discipline " which may be

M. E. GENEBAL CONFEBENCE OF 1828 159

construed or applied so as to militate against such acts ; and if
so to remedy the evil." The reader will not understand that this
proposal looks to better security for the membership, but it looks
to the utter inconsistency of the fundamental of the Church law,
that expulsion can take place only for immorality or such offences
as are " sufficient to exclude the offender from the kingdom of
grace and glory." The Conference is invited to look into the
"administration of the government, to see if it has been in
accordance with the strictness and purity of our system," —
another menace to Reformers from the bench of bishops.

The case of Rev. George Brown and Bishop Hedding has been
heretofore noticed. The latter charged the former with "in-
justice," "misrepresentation," and "vile slander" in his "Tim-
othy" article in the Mutual Rights of 1826 upon the Bishop's
Address before the Pittsburgh Conference. At its session in 1827
Bishop George acted as pacificator between them, and though Dr.
Brown had the concurrent testimony of eighteen ministers and
others who had heard the Bishop's Address and had read Brown's
article in review of it, that no such charges could be made to hold
against him, nevertheless Dr. Brown, to meet the pacific purpose
of Bishop George, wrote a letter to the Pittsburgh Conference of
1827, in which he admits that he might have misunderstood the
purpose of the Bishop, but firmly insists that he was not guilty
of injustice, or misrepresentation, or vile slander in his article.
After the decease of Bishop Hedding, Dr. Clark, his biographer,
made a very unfair and exaggerated statement of the case, to the
injury of Dr. Brown wherever Clark's account would be believed.
Happily Dr, Brown lived, in his "Itinerant Life,"1 to traverse
calmly the whole subject and vindicate himself from the aspersions
poured upon him. Hedding brought it, however, to the attention
of the General Conference, through a report, which likewise mis-
states the kind of " reparation " Dr. Brown had offered, resolved
that the Bishop was not " deserving of censure " in his Address,
"but the circumstances of the case rendered it his official duty to
deliver it." Hedding and Brown had been confidential friends,
and these relations were resumed at the General Conference in
Cincinnati in 1836. Dr. Clark may not have known of this, but
his resurrection of the matter in the biography, and his mode of
statement of it, were altogether uncalled for and unwarranted.

Dr. Bangs, in his "History," reviewing the Reform agitation,

1 Pages 129-163. Also Clark's " Biography," and the General Conference Re-
port on the subject.

160 HISTOBY OF METHODIST BEFOBM

referring to the Bond-Kelso section, was utterly misled in his
averments that the leaders had once agreed to place their claims
upon the ground of expediency alone, and that the strife occurred
by forsaking this ground for that of right. Evidently he relied
for his information upon Dr. Bond, for the whole course of the
events, as has been shown, is that right and not expediency was
the rallying cry of all true Reformers. His whole statement of
the case is partisan in the extreme.

All eyes were directed to the General Conference of 1828.
Xot a few of the active participants in reform and anti-reform
attended. Though the distance from Baltimore was two hundred
and eighty miles, when travel was by post-chaise and over the
mountains by the National Road, Dr. Bond was present to steer
the proceedings against the Reformers, instigated by himself
as their Mephistopheles. Shinn and Bascom were members.
Dr. Sellers now lived in Pittsburgh. George Brown and Cor-
nelius Springer, representatives of Reform among the ministers
in the West, were also present. Roszel and Emory were
members. They could not but meet, and meeting, pacification
was again brought forward. Several weeks before the General
Conference had convened, friends of Reform, and of the Reformers
about Pittsburgh, gave the expelled brethren of Baltimore notice
that they would inaugurate a movement for their restoration upon
honorable terms. To this intimation Dr. Jennings made answer
that such a restoration was desirable, if it could be secured,
"together with such an acknowledgment of our rights and privi-
leges as our friends may consider a satisfactory guarantee for
our safety, and which, of course, will make our return honor-
able." Accordingly, a Memorial was prepared, dated Pittsburgh,
May 19, 1828, and addressed to Rev. Daniel Ostrander, Chairman
of the Committee on the Itinerancy, to the following effect : —

Dear Brethren : The brethren who have been expelled the Church in
Baltimore, will and do hereby concede that publications may have appeared
in the Mutual Bit/lits, the nature and character of which was inflammatory,
and so far do not admit of vindication ; that individuals and facts from want
of proper information may have been unintentionally misrepresented. They
regret these things in every existing case. They agree that the Mutual Bights
shall be discontinued at the filling up of the present volume, in doing which
they will avoid just cause of offence to any brethren. That Union Societies
shall, by their advice and influence, be abolished, and no more be formed.
These concessions are made through us in behalf of Reformers generally, to
aid in the work of conciliation as conditions for the restoration of the ex-
pelled brethren in Baltimore, and elsewhere to the Church on terms respect-

GUILEFUL CONCILIATORY MOVEMENT 161

ful to both parties. By these concessions they are not to be understood as
relinquishing the freedom of speech and of the press, which they enjoy in
common with their brethren, nor of peacefully assembling for proper and
justifiable purposes.

[Signed] A. Shinn.

H. B. Bascom.
We concur in the above.

Nicholas Snethen.

Charles Avekt.

Henry D. Sellers.1

As printed in the Mutual Bights for June, 1828, the word may
is twice italicized, and the concluding sentence from these
concessions, printed in small caps; whether so in the original
no means are at hand to verify. Considering the heat of the
controversy and the wrongs under which they were suffering,
much is hereby conceded; but after several days answer was
returned that the "subject was not cognizable by the committee."
Advantage was, however, taken of the concessions by Dr. Emory
in his final elaborate report upon the whole subject, to make it
appear that "the General Conference granted everything we
[the Eeformers] asked for; that they have proffered to us resto-
ration on our own terms." 1 It will be seen from the resolutions
passed by the General Conference that the terms are almost
identical with those proposed by Dr. Bond, and afterward by
him through Dr. Green; and that the former's adroit manoeu-
vring is seen in all this part of the report : the terms are uncon-
ditional submission with the right of the Church officials to
discriminate among Eeformers, undoubtedly for the guileful pur-
pose of breaking their unity by receiving such as they would,
but excluding the leaders. More than ever it was made apparent
that no step taken was to be retraced, and that no wrong done was
to be redressed ; but a final manifesto issued that should crush out
the element remaining and smother the very germs of lay-repre-
sentation once for all. For the fairness and legitimacy of this
inference, appeal is made to the candid reader, and for evidence
nothing more need be offered than the Report and the Resolu-
tions of the Conference, both from the pen of Dr. John Emory.2

Before considering them, happily the writer has it in his power
to present a pen-picture of the scene in the Conference, which
preceded their introduction, in the argument upon the appeal of
Dennis B. Dorsey and W. C. Pool from the decision of the Bal-

1 Mutual Rights, Vol. IV- pp. 321-327. Jennings's " Exposition," pp. 77-83.

2 See Conference Minutes, or Dr. Bangs's "History," Vol. III. pp. 413-430.

VOL. II — M

162 UISTOliY OF METHODIST REFORM

timore Conference in 1827-28. Eev. George Brown, who was an
eye and ear witness, graphically and — no one who knew him
personally will doubt — truthfully depicted the scene. " Neither
of these brethren could be present, so they had committed the
management of their appeals to Eev. Asa Shinn, and, if I remem-
ber aright, Eev. Wilbur Fisk was appointed by the Conference
to assist him. The case came on in the morning, and was opened
by Mr. Shinn, who represented the appellants by reading the
grounds of their appeal as set forth by themselves in writing.
Then the members of the Baltimore Conference, according to the
forms of law governing in such cases, responded, justifying the
action of their Conference in the expulsions. This brought on
the hour of adjournment for dinner. That day I dined with Mr.
Shinn. He ate but little, conversed none, but his great soul was
full of thought and prayer. At two o'clock the case was resumed,
and there was a full house to hear Mr. Shinn make the closing
argument. I sat back without the bar to take down in writing
the main points of said argument. When Mr. Shinn arose and
stood in silence for a few moments the whole assembly became
very still. He was pale, calm, self-possessed, and very dignified
in appearance. He commenced his argument with a clear, round
tone of voice, evidently reaching every ear in the house. His
exordium was simple, modest, chaste — going to show that all he
wished for in behalf of the appellants was that the truth might
shine, that justice might be done. The facts of the case and the
laws of the Church were then most searchingly examined, and it
was made distinctly to appear that the expulsions were without
the sanction of the laws of the Church. He then made it clear,
from all the evidence in that high court of appeals, that the
charges against the appellants in the court below were not in
themselves criminal actions. He then took the written appeal
sent up by the expelled brethren, and argued the truthfulness and
justice of the paper in all its parts. He then appealed to the
justice and honor and impartiality of that high tribunal, and
urged, with all the force of his logical energy, the restoration of
the appellants to their places in the Church, and to the public
confidence. In the peroration the speaker became overwhelmingly
eloquent and swept defiantly over the enemies of mutual rights.
The effect upon that great assembly was thrilling. The bishops,
generally florid, now looked pale. Ex-Governor Findley of
Pennsylvania, who sat in the gallery, wept like a child. Many
members of the Conference felt like the Governor, so did many

shinn's masterful defence 163

spectators} and I found myself unable, some time before the
speech was ended, to take any more notes.

" When Mr. Shinn resumed his seat there was a long pause —
a time to take breath. The bishops and other leading members
of the Conference looked wisely at each other. Just then a New
England preacher, having seen me writing, came round to me,
and said: 'Why don't the bishops take a vote? I hate Shinn
like fire, but I never heard such an argument before in my life.
If they will put the vote now the appellants will be restored, and
the Baltimoreans defeated — and they ought to be defeated. ' So
thought I and many more besides that New England preacher.
But the vote was not put as the law directed. Bev. John Early
and other Southern preachers, without introducing any new ques-
tion, were suffered to run a tirade against Mr. Shinn most of the
afternoon for a piece in the Mutual Bights, published by him,
entitled 'Sovereignty of Methodism in the South.' To this dis-
orderly ramble Mr. Shinn made no reply, as it had no relation to
the question before the Conference. Finally, the Chair announced
that the vote would be taken in the morning. Erom that moment
the Eeformers had their fears of foul play. That evening at
supper, at the house of John McGill, much was said of the argu-
mentative eloquence of Mr. Shinn's speech that afternoon. Bishop
Eoberts, who sat at my side, said, 'Yes, that was true eloquence
of the highest order.' He then added that 'he did not remember
ever to have heard a speech surpassing Mr. Shinn's for argu-
mentative eloquence.' At that table, however, no opinion was
expressed as to how the vote would go the next morning. That
night about eleven o'clock I met Mr. Bascom on the street, who
said: 'There has been a caucus meeting to-night, and I have been
eavesdropping them. They have secured a majority of twenty
pledged on paper against the appellants.' I said, 'I did hope,
for the honor of the Christian religion, that he was mistaken, '
but he affirmed this was so, and said, 'you will see to-morrow
morning.' In the morning when the vote was taken they had
about that majority against the appellants that Bascom had
reported. This whole affair led me strongly to suspect that
Eeformers were to have no fair dealing in that General Confer-
ence. In this case would the end sanctify the means, or the
means sanctify the end? Were not both the end and the means
wrong? The forms of law, in the main, had been allowed during
the trial; but the ends of justice had been defeated by caucus
management." 1

1 Brown's " Itinerant Life," pp. 166-169.

164 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

The reader has not forgotten the dark-lantern methods, identi-
cal with these just disclosed, by which a full two-thirds majority,
in 1820, in favor of an elective Presiding Eldership was changed
into a majority against it. The pacific and lenient attitude of
the General Conference under the searching logic and persuasive
eloquence of Shinn had its marplot. Not a few of the same par-
tisans were present, M'Kendree and Soule of the Episcopal bench,
and their fuglemen in the delegations reenforced by Dr. Bond,
a strategist tutored in all the guileful arts of political machina-
tion. A majority of about twenty pledged on paper under cover
of the night, intermediate of a session. Why pledged on paper?
For the same reason as in 1820 — that there might be no shirk-
ing, or, if so, their exposure to the Episcopal authorities and
their quiet punishment afterward. It required a heroism of iron
texture to withstand such menacing consequences ; and yet, out
of a body of 177 a majority of only about twenty could be com-
manded for the justification of the expulsion of Dorsey and Pool,
carrying with it all the other cases constructively. It must be
admitted that the result was an overwhelming disappointment to
Shinn and his coadjutors. His effort had been exhaustive, not
only of the subject, but of himself, which showed itself before
the session closed in mental fag and aberration, superinduced by
the early physical injury to his head already referred to, and
which continued for about six months, withdrawing him from
active ministerial life for the time. If never conclusively before
demonstrated, the case in hand was a fitting illustration of
Snethen's dictum, which needs to be repeated every time its
demonstration occurs in the course of the Episcopal history, —
" Power combined with interest and inclination cannot be con-
trolled by logic; but even power shrinks from the test of logic."

Reserving an analysis of Dr. Emory's final report on the sub-
ject of Reform to the succeeding chapter, and in association with
the McCaine-Emory-Stevens argument on the Episcopacy as in
some sense kindred, and that the present chapter may not be
unduly lengthened, a few other salient events of this General
Conference shall be grouped in its conclusion. It is noteworthy
that neither Bangs nor M'Tyeire gives the result of the " sus-
pended resolutions " of 1820-24, but Dr. Tigert, from the Journal,
provides the information. William Winans moved and William
Capers seconded the following resolution: "That the resolutions
commonly called the suspended resolutions, rendering the presid-
ing elders elective, etc., and which were referred to this Confer-

MORE DARK-LANTERN PROCEEDINGS 165

ence by the last General Conference as unfinished business and
reported to us at this Conference, be, and are hereby, rescinded
and made void. Carried." The vote is not given, but it was
probably a snap-judgment, as the next day D. Ostrander and T.
Merrett " bravely brought forward the old measure ; but it was
promptly tabled, apparently without debate." The biographer
of Bishop Emory says that it is not known how his illustrious
father voted, " nor, if known, would it afford evidence as to the
state of his opinion on the abstract question." Undoubtedly he
was now in the direct line of promotion, and, as has been found
and will again and again be found in these pages, it is as common
as history that illumination should go hand in hand with prefer-
ment. " Men have a right to change their opinions ; " certainly
they have the right. If he were not a " Radical," this was the one
point in Methodist reformation which his gifted son Robert makes
plain on which he had not opinions only, but convictions. As
opinions it can be understood how he could waive them; but it will
ever remain to be explained how he got rid of his convictions on
this occasion, and never once broached them again to the close of
his brief, but useful life. Thus a reasonable ministerial right
was smothered to its death, and not revived again until 1840.

This General Conference, on a paper submitted by Wilbur
Fisk, changed one of its Restrictive Rules as follows: "Pro-
vided, nevertheless, that upon concurrent recommendation of
three-fourths of all the members of the several annual confer-
ences who shall be present and vote for such recommendation,
then a majority of two-thirds of the General Conference succeed-
ing shall suffice to alter any such regulations, excepting the first
article." This made it possible for the legislative body of the
Church to effect changes in its organic law, though by a circum-
scription which practically ignores even a two-thirds majority of
the preachers (it leaves undisturbed their ancient right to exclu-
sive legislative powers), without the call of a Convention of the
Church; and for this no provision whatever was ever made, and
yet these rules and regulations of 1808 are called a " constitu-
tion ! " Again, the deadlock of the bishops in 1826, as to the
appointment of a fraternal messenger to the Wesleyan Confer-
ence, divided as they already were upon the slavery question,
was reported to this Conference. The same candidates over whom
they wrangled were brought forward, and the contest was as close
as when the bishops wrestled with them. On the second ballot,
however, Capers received 82 and Fisk 72 out of 158 votes, so that

166 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

Capers succeeded by a majority of six, or two more than the
number necessary to a choice, as there were scattering votes.
He was warmly received in England and discharged his mission
satisfactorily, but his election was unpalatable to the growing
antislavery sentiment of the Northern brethren.

The Canada Methodist Episcopal Conference, after much dis-
cussion, was separated from the jurisdiction of the General Con-
ference at their request. It was under Asbury's recognition, but
in a foreign civil jurisdiction. It complicated the situation which
Dr. Emory endeavored, with his fertility of invention, to solve
by an ingenious "voluntary theory," which Dr. Bangs thinks
put it "in a new and very clear light." Dr. Tigert is quizzically
of opinion " that it was new, there could be little question ; its
clearness depends somewhat on the angle of vision." Distance
and the slavery moot led to this disruption. They were allowed
their " annual dividends " from the New York Book Concern. It
was, in fact, a "secession," and Tigert says, "we are not aware
that this hard and ugly word has ever been applied to it." No;
it was reserved for the separation of the two African churches,
the Bethelites and the Zionites, the Methodist Protestants, the
Wesleyans, and the Church South. It was a memorable General
Conference, and fitly closed its business by electing Nathan
Bangs editor of the Christian Advocate, and promoting Emory
from Assistant to Book Agent, with Beverly Waugh as his
Assistant. Ex-Reformers were popular for promotion, that is,
certain of them. The Conference adjourned May 24, 1828.

CHAPTER X

Report of the committee of the General Conference on the petitions and memo-
rials for Lay-Representation written by Dr. Emory under Dr. Bond's prompt-
ings ; analysis of it ; Asa Shinn's motion to adopt ; his after sane repudiation
of it — Resolutions of restoration of the expelled and the withdrawn; artful
exceptions in the phrasing to exclude leaders, etc. — A careful and thorough
review of McCaine's "History and Mystery"; Emory's "Defence of our
Fathers " ; McCaine's rejoinders, and Dr. Stevens's famous chapter on the
Ordination of Dr. Coke in his " History of the M. E. Church " ; a candid synop-
sis of each of these arguments as the knotty and perplexing question of this
ancient controversy ; side lights thrown upon it ; McCaine's thirty-seven rea-
sons for his opinion never successfully controverted ; Wesley's " Little Sketch "
of government again considered — The so-called historical Preface to the Disci-
pline of the M. E. Church must be amended or expunged, as demanded by the
truth of history ; already done in that of the M. E. Church, South — Dr. Stevens's
whole argument invalidated by a single admission of his own.

The petitions and memorials addressed to the General Confer-
ence of 1828 were not all in favor of Representation. Knowing
that such would be there in large numbers, it was a part of the
policy of the anti-reformers to send up counter petitions ; and in
some sections enough male members were found of the Yearley-
Israel calibre to unite in such. They were never shown to be
either numerous or influential; but even one enabled the Com-
mittee, of which Dr. Emory was Chairman, to say that they had
considered these petitions " for and against a direct lay and local
representation." The writer has just reread this elaborate and
exhaustive Keport, yet claimed to be " confined to a few leading
topics," which made a sensation in the Conference and, afterward,
throughout the Church, equalled only by the speech of Shinn,
defensive. One thing is evident upon its perusal, that Dr. Emory
either called into his council of preparation Dr. Bond, or he had
ingeniously employed not a few of the points of the latter's
"Appeal to the Methodists," inasmuch as it traverses much of
the same ground. The acute legal mind of Emory runs through
it in the sophistries and subtleties of its arguments, while in
rhetoric the classic flow of its well-rounded sentences is captivat-
ing, and makes the worse appear the better reason. It should be

167

168 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

read by every one desiring to be informed as to the best that
could be delivered antagonistic to Reform; space will allow but
a condensed analysis.

It first takes up the question of Eight, and declares it must be
either "natural or acquired"; and the author makes it plain to
himself and sympathizers that it is neither: the inference is, that
joining the Methodist Episcopal Church strips a man of all that
citizenship in a republic confers upon him. It had already been
worn threadbare as an argument. But may be they "claim it
against the judgment of a large majority," and that its concession
would conciliate. This is combated by the assertion that no
such effect would follow, as the opposition in the ranks of the
laity was immensely against it and that of the most intelligent.
The demands of the local preachers is shown to be incongruous
with the "original economy of Methodism." The gist of it is
that what has not been, should not be. Admitting that the
memorialists are honest in not wishing to impair the " itinerant
economy," they cannot tell what their successors might do. The
reader can judge how conclusive this objection is on general prin-
ciples. Under the head of the itinerants' personal interest the
most remarkable of the averments is made. The admission is
confessed that if these lay-rights were conceded it might advance
their temporal support, but it "is not known to the present
economy" (again, what has not been should not be); but listen:
" The great Head of the Church himself has imposed on us the
duty of preaching the gospel, of administering its ordinances, and
of maintaining its moral discipline among those over whom the
Holy Ghost, in these respects, has made us overseers. Of these
also, namely, of gospel doctrines, ordinances, and moral disci-
pline, we do believe that the divinely instituted ministry are the
divinely authorized expounders; and that the duty of maintain-
ing them in their purity, and of not permitting our ministrations,
in these respects, to be authoritatively controlled by others, does
rest upon us with the force of a moral obligation, in the due dis-
charge of which our consciences are involved." It was of this
particular deliverance that Dr. Brown witnesses : " A very learned
and sagacious Catholic priest saw in this manifesto of the Gen-
eral Conference a family likeness, and published it in the Catholic
Telegraph in Cincinnati, declaring that the Church of Rome never
made a higher claim to spiritual and ecclesiastical power than
this."1

1 "Itinerant Life," pp. 195, 196.

EMORY'S REPORT: LORDLY ASSUMPTIONS 169

It was indeed the cap-sheaf of lordly assumption, and settled it
with the Keformers that nothing could be expected of the ruling
authorities of the Church ; progression and not reaction along the
lines of hierarchic presumption was the key-note thus set. The
sentences criticised afforded the Keformers other epigrammatical
slogans, which they were not slow in utilizing. The succeeding
paragraph of the Report is a hair-splitting refinement in qualifi-
cation of the bold declaration — even Emory felt that the ground
taken was disputable. " The right of ecclesiastical expatriation
from any branch of the Christian Church to any other which may
be preferred, for grave causes, we have never denied. Nor can
we keep, nor are we desirous to keep, any man subject to our
authority one moment longer than it is his own pleasure." If
not an echo, it is a duplicate of Dr. Bond; it says, if you do
not like our rule, leave it and us. It appears, therefore, that
laymen and others have at least this right. O'Kelly and his
adherents adopted this course, and were stigmatized as " seceders,"
and he was pursued with rancor to his death. The claim is now
made, that it was the distinctive governmental features that
ensured the success of Methodism in the past; innovation had
not been tried, and, therefore, should not be; "there is no pros-
pect of gain that would justify the hazard." It had often been
urged before, and, antecedently, it is the only objection that has
in it a grain of weight.

Paragraphs following "retort the insinuation of sinister
motives," and a sarcastic fling is made at those "who have
deserted the itinerant fields " — Snethen, McCaine, and a few
others who were now located; and the discussion is prolonged
over the lack of precedents for the changes proposed either in
England or America, aiming special invidious comment upon the
inchoate proposals of the first Reform Convention, the paucity of
its numbers in attendance, and the strange intimation made, that
if the laity were accorded representation they would be conspicu-
ous only by their absence in General Conference. The fact that
the Reformers, out of deference and expediency, declined to
send with their petitions a formulated scheme of reconstruction
is turned against them; the General Conference, forsooth, had
nothing to consider as to a plan, verily! Much meekness is
claimed for not repelling with "strong expressions" the affirma-
tion of Reformers, that they have been denied the liberty of
speech and of the press under the provision of 1796, against
" sowing dissensions and inveighing against the discipline " that

170 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

the law was applied only " in the sense of unchristian railing and
violence. Any other construction of it we have never sanctioned,
nor will we." It is Dr. Bond reflected, but it begs the whole
question involved : Does the literature of Reform give evidence
of such a violation of the law? It is the very issue, and pos-
terity will never consent that liberty of speech and of the press
was not infringed until the case is made against the Reformers.
Only some ten years ago Dr. Augustus Webster entertained for
a few days a distinguished minister of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, who, observing in the doctor's library bound copies of
the Mutual Rights, asked the privilege to take them to his room
and examine them before he retired, as he had never before seen
the much scandalized volumes. The next morning he returned
them with the playful remark, that he could find nothing " rail-
ing" or "violent" in them. The incident was told the writer
by the doctor himself.

A paragraph is used to show that the want of analogy between
the government of the Church and the State so far from being an
objection is a virtue, inasmuch as separation of the Church and
State is a cardinal American doctrine, and to make the govern-
ments analogous would be the surest way to enable politicians to
bring about such a union. This is so original that it must be
passed without challenge. The presence of Union Societies in
the Church is now discussed, and while no attempt is made to
show that they were in contravention of any known section of the
Discipline, nevertheless, as their purpose was to secure Reform
by propagation of new principles of church government, they are
to be unsparingly condemned for this reason; that is, what has
been the polity shall continue to be, with coercion as the instru-
ment, for maintaining uniform opinion.

Reserving to the close of this analysis the most remarkable of
its declarations, astonishment must be expressed that Dr. Emory
should have allowed himself to be betrayed into a reproduction
of Dr. Bond's "purse-string" argument as evincing the control
the laity have over the ministry ; but he was at his elbow in the
composition of the Report. Thus it is put : " the envied pittance
of those who now devote themselves wholly to the work, and are
absolutely dependent for daily subsistence on the mere voluntary
contributions of those whom they serve " (a check on their power
indeed!). So far as the writer has knowledge, however, it is the
last appearance of a suggestion that outrages Christian honor and
disciplinary Law, right-minded brethren recoiling from it in very

ANALYSIS OF EMORY'S REPORT 171

shame, except Dr. Bond — he kept on repeating it to the close of
his last editorial term of the Christian Advocate.

It may be that the sarcasm of a concluding paragraph of the
Eeport was not observed by the writer : " We might add much
more, but the time fails us. We entreat our brethren to be at
peace. It is our earnest and sincere desire." Eobert Emory,
in the "Life of Bishop Emory," says, "The Eeport was adopted
without, it is believed, a dissenting voice, and that, too, on a
motion of a distinguished leader of 'Beforrn.'" Bangs says,
" nearly unanimously. " It is true that the motion to adopt was
made by Asa Shinn. It was a surprise to all but his near friends.
It was evident that the intense mental excitement had unhinged
his mind. It was the second lapse of the kind. The Advocate
in publishing the Eeport italicizes the fact, " on motion of the Rev.
Asa Shinn. " " Luther, " W. W. Hill, in the June number of the
Mutual Rights, uncovers it as a "pitiful stratagem," and adds,
" should it please God to restore Mr. Shinn to health, he will no
doubt give an exhibit of this extraordinary report." More than
a year afterward Shinn, having fully recovered his mental poise,
masterfully dissected the Eeport and made an endeavor to explain
his motion without fully admitting the true cause of it. It was
so cogent as a review that Emory, as editor of the Methodist
Magazine, essayed answer to it, January, 1830.

Following the Eeport was a series of resolutions, also from
Dr. Emory's pen, which were "nearly unanimously adopted"
also. Who the bold dissentients were is not now known. There
were not a half-dozen pronounced Eeformers in the Conference.
By methods already exposed they were left at home. The resolu-
tions recite : " This General Conference affectionately advises that
no further proceedings may be had in any part of our work against
any member or minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church, on
account of any past agency, or concern, in relation to the above
named periodical, or in relation to any Union Society above
mentioned." The pen was scarcely dry, however, that wrote it
before other prosecutions and expulsions took place, as will be
seen in regular order. The conditions of restoration are embodied
in the resolutions : " If any persons expelled as aforesaid feel free
to concede that publications have appeared in said Mutual Rights,
the nature and character of which were unjustifiably inflamma-
tory, and do not admit of vindication; and that in others for
want of proper information, or unintentionally, have yet in fact
misrepresented individuals and facts, and that they regret these

172 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

things. If it be voluntarily agreed also that the union societies
above alluded to shall be abolished; and the periodical called the
JIutual Rights be discontinued, at the close of the current volume,
which shall be completed" (it had three months to run), "with
due respect to the conciliatory and pacific design of this arrange-
ment; then this general conference does hereby give authority
for the restoration, to their ministry or membership respectively,
in the Methodist Episcopal Church, of any person or persons so
expelled aforesaid; provided this arrangement shall be mutually
assented to by any individual or individuals so expelled, and also
by the quarterly conference and the minister or preacher having
the charge of any circuit or station within which any such expul-
sion may have taken place; and that no such minister or preacher
shall be obliged, under this arrangement, to restore any such
individual as leader of any class, or classes, unless in his own
discretion he shall judge it proper to do so; and provided also
that it be further mutually agreed that no other periodical pub-
lication, to be devoted to the same controversy, shall be estab-
lished on either side ; it being expressly understood, at the same
time, that this, if agreed to, will be on the ground not of any
assumption of right to require this, but of mutual consent for the
restoration of peace; and that no individual will be hereafter pre-
cluded from issuing any publication, which he may judge proper
on his own responsibility." Any who had " withdrawn " were also
to have the same opportunity to return. "One of the Expelled"
subsequently drastically exposed these provisions as utterly im-
possible of compliance by any self-respecting Christian man.1

It is needless to underscore the numerous provisos for emphasis
and understanding. The terms are far more stringent than those
proposed by Dr. "Bond, through Dr. John S. Eeese and, subse-
quently, through Dr. Green, as already recited. Two things are
conspicuous : the humiliation of any Reformer asking restora-
tion, and the reserve of the Quarterly Conference and the preacher
in charge to discriminate between them, so that the leaders should
not be restored, with a special eye to Alexander iMcCaine, for
whom there was to be never restoration, with what justice shall
be presently shown. Dr. Brown says he never knew an expelled
or withdrawn member to accept the humiliating proposals. It
was true in the West, and, with one exception, so far as the
writer knows, true in the East also. However, a year or two
later Rev. Daniel E. Reese accepted the terms, and in his old age
i Mutual Rights, Vol. IV pp. 338-344.

THE CONTROVERSY EMBODIED AND DISSECTED 173

was restored as a local minister in the Church. But Dr. John
S. Reese and three younger half-brothers, Levi B,., Daniel E.,
and Eli Yeates graced the ministry of the Methodist Protestant
Church to the day of their respective deaths.

It is now opportune for a critical analysis of McCaine's " His-
tory and Mystery"; Dr. Emory's "Defence of Our Fathers,"
in reply; McCaine's "Defence of the Truth," in rejoinder as
amplified in his " Letters on the Organization and Early History
of the Methodist Episcopal Church " ; and such fugitive observa-
tions as were made by Dr. Emory in the Methodist Magazine, on
McCaine's rejoinder to his "Defence." Dr. Stevens's chapter in
his second volume of the " History of Methodism," with the title,
"Did Wesley design, by his Ordination of Coke, to confer on
him the Office of Bishop and to constitute the American Metho-
dist Societies an Episcopal Church?" is added, and all the litera-
ture on this special subject is recited.1 Much of the ground
defensive of McCaine's principal allegations has been gone over
in the previous volume, to which the reader is referred, and need
not, therefore, be here repeated. Much that is immaterial to
the present purpose is included in these several publications, and
must be passed with the briefest comment. The endeavor shall
be made to sift out the essential differences, and show them, true
or false, between these disputants. The whole must be rigidly
condensed for this work, as the entire literature named is the
equivalent of about six hundred printed octavo pages. It shall
be kept, however, accessible to any inquiring reader who may
doubt any assertion, or question any conclusion, of the writer in
this criticism.

The contentions of McCaine in the "History and Mystery"

1 " Wesley and Episcopacy. A collection of evidence, showing that John Wes-
ley neither originated nor approved of Episcopacy in American Methodism," by
D. S. Stephens, D.D., Pittsburgh. Methodist Protestant Publishing House. 1892.
12mo. 90 pp. Paper.

Assertions to the contrary having just been made in the New York Christian
Advocate and the Methodist Review, the Methodist Recorder, D. S. Stephens, editor,
controverted them. Whereupon the Central Christian Advocate challenged the
editor to produce the " documentary evidence " that would support his controver-
sion. The pamphlet named furnishes the evidence with an argument cumulative
so masterful and complete that the editor of one of the associate Advocates, with
a frankness that does it honor, admits that the case is made, that the argument
is a finality on the subject. The reader who wishes to see the argument as spread
over these volumes, and much amplified in many of its phases with additional
features and indisputable facts, presented as under a focus of concentrated light,
is referred to this pamphlet. It contains some collateral evidence not found in
these pages.

174 HISTOBY OF METHODIST REFORM

may be briefly recited — the evidence upon which he depended
has been already luminously presented in the previous volume.
Firstly, he contends that, historically considered, an Episco-
pacy is a ministry of three orders, Bishops, Presbyters, and
Deacons. Secondly, that Mr. "Wesley in appointing Dr. Coke
a Superintendent under a form of ordination did not intend
to constitute him a Bishop, episcopally understood, and that of
consequence, the Conference of 1784 could not have followed " the
counsel of Mr. Wesley, who recommended the episcopal mode of
government" for the American Methodist Societies. Thirdly,
his conclusion that "the present form of government was sur-
reptitiously introduced, and was imposed upon the societies under
the sanction of Mr. Wesley's name." To refute these allegations
Dr. Emory set himself in the "Defence of Our Fathers "; and he
reviews it in the order of subjects presented by McCaine. The
first seventy-four pages of it are occupied in a denial of McCaine's
positions and a review of the evidences on which he relied.
What he establishes is, that there are other forms of Episcopacy
besides that of a three-order one; that ecclesiastical history
anent bishops and presbyters being the same and differing orders
is a muddle of contradictions ; and that precedents are not want-
ing in justification of such an Episcopacy as was formulated at
the Christmas Conference of 1784; that McCaine is in error as to
the absolute rejection of Whatcoat as Wesley's appointee as a
coadjutor Superintendent; that he is also in error as to the puni-
tive act of Wesley in leaving Dr. Coke's name off the minutes of
the British Conference for 1786, for his participation with Asbury
in the Address to President Washington, which was not made
until 1789; and that various forms of McCaine's evidence are
susceptible of a different construction. Through these fifteen
sections of the " Defence " Dr. Emory does not hesitate to resort
to the subterfuge that McCaine is "mistaken," that he does not
"understand," that another view must be the correct one, without
giving proof of it. He shows that McCaine, in asserting that the
secession from the Methodist Episcopal Church, in 1792-94,
amounted to twenty thousand, is in error, inasmuch as he gives a
false summing up of the numbers in membership in 1791, while
a correct recapitulation shows that an error of thirteen thousand
was made by the Conference secretary, which has come down
through all the minutes since uncorrected. He severely arraigns
McCaine for following this Conference error. He occupies four
pages in an animadversion upon the Washington Address matter,

McCAINE, EMORY, AND STEVENS 175

and shows that Drew, Dr. Coke's biographer, whom McCaine
followed, ought to be excused, he thinks, for his misleading asso-
ciation of these events. And, in the final chapter, he notes
McCaine's "inconsistency" in the Plan he offered for the recon-
struction of the mother Church, and a few other points.

About a year after, McCaine rejoined in his " Defence of the
Truth " ; and he gives an introductory chapter explanatory of his
method in conducting his first investigations, and defensive of
his moral character, which had been assailed in the most unwar-
rantable manner after the publication of the " History and Mys-
tery." He gives the charges and specifications, under which he
was called to trial by Hanson and Dr. Bond, for alleging that
McCaine had "purchased copper, knowing it to have been stolen,"
etc. The case was ignominiously abandoned at the office of the
civil magistrate as "unsustained." He also appends a certificate
of recommendation, which was given him on the eve of his trip
South for his health, signed by all the Faculty of the University
of Maryland, and of the Washington College, as well as the
judges of the City Court, of the District Court, the United States
District Attorney, John Purviance, Esq., William Wirt, Attor-
ney-General of the United States, Samuel L. Southard, Secretary
of the Navy, and John M'Lean, Postmaster-General. The latter
was also a personal friend of Rev. William C. Lipscomb, ap-
pointing him to office in 1828, and was in social intimacy with
Reformers, though he never took public ground in their favor.
Yet this is the man thus recommended who was hounded as an
outlaw in that day by anti-reformers, and of whom Dr. Bond said
in the bitterness of his hostility, "if he were to sweep the streets
of Baltimore he could not find a man under the influence of worse
motives than I am." The venerable Bev. Thomas McCormick
related to the writer as one of the incidents of the time, that Dr.
Bond in a social gathering, the conversation having turned upon
meetings in heaven, said, " There is one man I do not expect to
meet there." Query being made, he answered, "Alexander

McCaine."

" Alas ! for the rarity
Of Christian charity
Under the sun."

In this introductory chapter the lion is at bay : " My character
has been assailed from so many quarters. So many base strata-
gems have been resorted to, with a view of injuring my reputa-
tion, weakening my influence, and destroying my temporal

176 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

interests, that men who know the value of character will not,
it is hoped, think I have transgressed the bounds of Christian
moderation, in exposing these proceedings. . . I write in jus-
tification of my own character and in defence of the truth, and
shall leave an impartial public to pronounce the verdict."

McCaine's "Defence of the Truth" now claims as impartial a
judgment as the writer is capable of giving, and it is hoped the
reader will discover that he is in no wise disposed to extenuate
its faults or compound its extremes, thereby giving greater weight
to the things he does establish beyond reasonable contradiction,
for these are the material matters after all. The first three
pages are occupied with questionings of Emory's motives in writ-
ing the "Defence of Our Fathers," prompted by his defamation
of McCaine, in that with " great unkindness I pursue Mr. Asbury
in his grave." It must be confessed that McCaine's method of
sarcastic personalities very much impairs his several controversial
pamphlets. He aptly, however, turns Emory's equally personal
and more than sarcastic reference just cited, by reminding him
that the same charge was preferred against Wesley, "his sacri-
legious hand violates the ashes of the dead," and traduces the
character of Mr. Whitefield, " with ungodly craft he claws up the
ashes of the dead." 1 He extenuates his fault in these personali-
ties : " If the reader will pardon the appearance of egotism, I will
tell him that since God was pleased to convert my soul, I have
made it a rule not to say anything of a man in his absence that I
would not say in his presence ; that from that period until this,
my heart has been free from the fear of man ; and that I am not
now conscious of having flattered a man in all that time; this is
not the smooth way to heaven, but as far as I understand the
principles and precepts of the New Testament, it is the way that
is prescribed; and this is the way I choose to walk in." In his
vindication he then cites from half a dozen letters addressed him
by Bishop Asbury, from 1799 to 1815, the last less than a year
prior to his death. Citations may be made as follows : " My
confidence in you as a man of piety, honor, and conscience is
hereby signified; I love you, I know — your honest bluntness I
approve." For several years he had designated McCaine as the
person among all the preachers as best qualified by his learning
and ability to write a commentary on the Scriptures, to be called
"The Focus." Hence this reference in 1815: "The focus upon
the great book. Have you begun? begin book after book, gen-
i Wesley's " Works," Vol. X. p. 4S+.

REVIEW OF THE TRIPARTITE CONTENTION 177

eral history and contents; it has been upon my mind for years;
but who should I fix upon; it is Alexander McCaine." Finally,
July 15, 1815, having heard that McCaine had lost his wife, he
suggests that he would accommodate him in an appointment so
that he might work upon " The Focus " : "I have been reading
these fifty years, and have never seen what meeteth my mind,
I mean an universal Focus taken from all authors worthy of
notice."

McCaine never entered upon this work, for obvious reasons.
One was, he found a skeleton in the Methodist closet, ten years
later. The door had been closed and sealed by Dr. Coke and his
loved Bishop Asbury. It was no agreeable discovery, as he re-
cites, but without fear or favor he opened the long-sealed door,
and suffered the penalty of all such indiscretions to the close of
his life. The "History and Mystery" did it, and so incontro-
vertibly that reverent but ignorant and prejudiced Methodists,
without challenge of the facts, denounced it as a work " written
with all the malignity of which the human heart is capable."
To Emory's insinuation that McCaine would not have had the
effrontery to assert what he does in his pamphlet before the
decease of Coke and Asbury, he answers : " Had I before their
death the light on the subject which I now have, I cannot con-
ceive any reason I should have been deterred from giving pub-
licity to my views; but I had not. For I never examined the
subject until lately, always receiving as true the statements pub-
lished in the book of Discipline and Minutes of the Conference."
These several citations will be excused as exhibiting the true
relation of McCaine to the persons involved and to the subject
discussed.

Seven pages of McCaine's rejoinder are occupied with Emory's
first section " On Episcopacy," in which McCaine shows that they
are at cross-purposes ; Emory for diversion of attention bringing
into the question points utterly irrelevant as to McCaine's con-
tention, and serving only to cloud the real issue, which McCaine
again states, to wit: "If the societies now constituting the
Methodist Episcopal Church, in the exercise of their right to
frame their constitution, preferred at their organization the
episcopal government, in what light are the bishops of that Church
to be considered? As mere presbyters, or as an order of ministers
distinct from and superior to presbyters? This is the inquiry
under consideration, and Mr. Emory knows it." The latter was
the view of Coke and Asbury, and the prevalent opinion for

VOL. II N

178 HISTORY OF METHODIST BEFOBM

years after 1784, and indeed largely down to 1844. McCaine
demonstrates that Wesley could not and did not so understand
it, and that in this he does not "misrepresent him." This is
the whole question, and to-day at least in the Methodist Epis-
copal Church no one is left seriously to doubt it ; x the Church
has officially passed upon it. So that one must be scored for
McCaine as to this issue, despite the burdensome citations and
learned inconsequents running through the first seventy pages of
Emory's "Defence."

Having censured McCaine severely for omitting the name of
an authority quoted, by asking, "Was it not because he was
ashamed of it ? " McCaine gives the name of Eev. Dr. Kew-
ley and draws a parallel between their respective careers under
which Dr. Emory must have winced; but as the matter is
purely personal it may be dismissed. "Sentiments of Bishop
White" is the next of Emory's sections. They seem to have
been introduced to show that Dr. Coke is not responsible for the
failure of the overtures made by him to White in 1791 for re-
union, and that the Methodist Episcopal Church had the right to
" revive such a superintendency as was practised by the apostles
and by Timothy and Titus." He dismisses with a wave of his
hand the insuperable obstacle that they were, as Wesley taught,
" extraordinary teachers, whom Christ employed to lay the founda-
tion of his kingdom." It is nothing to the purpose as to any
" misrepresentations " McCaine made, and to expose these Emory
wrote ostensibly. It is controversial dust, and excusatory of the
anomalous Episcopacy of Methodism. "Mr. Wesley's Opinion"
is next. Emory cites an opinion given by Wesley on another
issue entirely in 1756, twenty-eight years before the Christmas
Conference and its doings. The opinion was : " I still believe the
episcopal form of government to be scriptural and apostolical, I
mean, well agreeing with the practice and writings of the apos-
tles. But that it is prescribed in the scripture, I do not believe."
McCaine exhibits that its introduction as germane to the discus-
sion was disingenuous, inasmuch as he clearly makes appear from
the original reference itself that what Mr. AVesley meant in view
of his oft-repeated declaration that " bishops and presbyters are
the same order " was that of a government by presbyters, and an
ordination by presbyters, something very different from Coke and
Asbury's episcopacy. A second score for McCaine. The next
section is "Ordination." It is a dialectical display between

1 Professor Miley of Drew Seminary is au exception — rara avis.

'■'DEFENCE OF OUR FATHERS" ANALYZED 179

these masters of fence and parry, and has no pertinence unless
Mr. Wesley's intent in the ordination of Dr. Coke could be under-
stood; but as this vexed question has never been settled on either
side, it may be passed as a draw between them. He returns a
" Roland for his Oliver " by citing the fact that Emory makes
quotations without giving either the author or the page, one in
this section in point, and McCaine justly observes : " This is the
more reprehensible in him, because he is so lavish of his abuse
of me for having once failed to give the name of an author from
whom I made extract."

" Ordination of Coke " is the fifth section of Emory's " De-
fence," and McCaine occupies twenty pages of his rejoinder in an
exhaustive analysis and refutation, and exposes at the same time
a most disingenuous assertion of Dr. Bangs's. This matter of the
ordination of Coke by Wesley has been so largely treated in the
former volume that reference of the reader must be made to it,
though McCaine elaborates this section, and leaves Emory's con-
tention that it must have been to a " third order " without a foot
to stand on, from his clear demonstration that, whatever else the
ordination was, or, as Wesley himself denominates it, " appoint-
ment" of Dr. Coke as a "general superintendent," it could not
have been to a "third order," without convicting Wesley of an
insane and utterly irreconcilable contradiction of all his previous
averments. McCaine's implied inference is that if Coke was not
" set apart " to a " third order, " then the Episcopacy of Methodism
in America is in no sense like Episcopacy as understood and
taught by Episcopalians, but a mere " general superintendency "
by a Presbyter set apart by a ceremonial (that Wesley probably
used that of the English Prayer Book with verbal changes to suit
the exigency as a convenience in Coke's case, and retained it in
the abridged book sent for the adoption of the American Metho-
dists, is nothing to the purpose), with the object of investing the
office with clerical dignity. Such an Episcopacy McCaine did
not challenge; such an Episcopacy is now the only one allowed
by the official interpretation of the Methodist Episcopal Church;
such an Episcopacy obtains in the Canada " Methodist " Church,
in the Eree Methodist Church; in the Methodist Protestant
Church, diocesan in its character as a superintendence by Annual
Conference Presidents, and in this a verisimilitude of the true-
blue Episcopacy of the Protestant Episcopal Church ; in fine, such
an Episcopacy as is not disputed in any of the so-called " Non-
episcopal " Churches, as it would be a mere higgling over words.

180 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

Another score must be made for McCaine ; let the doubtful reader
peruse the whole text. The disingenuous averment of Dr. Bangs's
will be best considered in a foot-note.1

"Dr. Coke's Letter to Bishop White" is next in order.
McCaine gives thirteen pages to it; the letter, its analysis, his
correspondence with White anent it, and his demonstration that
Coke did not know of Wesley's death, as Emory asserts, when
he wrote and despatched the letter, — all this is elaborately dis-
sected in the first volume, in which this writer differs a little
from the conclusions of McCaine, and to which he must refer
the reader to avoid repetition. Another score must be made
for McCaine. "The Prayer Book of 1784" comes next. The
whole gist of it is that Dr. Emory essays to find, as it was
recommended for use to the American Methodists, that of
necessity this was Wesley's "recommendation of an Episcopal
form of government." It is McCaine's task through ten pages
to show that it does not afford a scintilla of proof, except the
word "recommend" in Wesley's letter as to the use of the
Prayer Book in given times and places. And to cap his argu-
ment he furnishes letters from three of the preachers who were
members of the Conference of 1784; namely, Dromgoole, Ware,

1 Bangs and Emory were associated as Book Agents at this time, and the former,
that he might assist his chum in overwhelming McCaine, asserted in the Methodist
Magazine for September, 1827 : "How changed is the author of the ' History and
Mystery ' from what he was when he heard, read, approved, and recommended for
publication at the Methodist Book Room the ' Vindication of Methodist Episco-
pacy.' He need not attempt to deny this fact, because it stands attested by his
own signature as secretary of the book committee." Emory in the Preface to
his " Defence of Our Fathers" echoes pretty much the same averment against
McCaine. To show the shifts, and the writer is in this case const rained to say,
the dishonesty, of his doughty opponents, he gives in a foot-note to his " Defence of
the Truth," p. 55, a full account of the whole matter by a transcript of the book
committee's minutes at the time; and the evidence is that all McCaine had to do
with Bangs's "Vindication" was as secretary to the committee to record their
action as follows : " 1st, On motion it was resolved that the committee approve of
its publication. 2d, Resolved that the above work be recommended to the book
agents for publication. Signed as an 'attest,' Alexander McCaine," who was
now in the employ of the Book Concern in a subordinate position. The date is
September 8, 1820. This is the work before noted as objected to by Soule, who
was then Book Agent, but which passed approval after reconstruction by Bangs,
the ground of Soule's protest being that it was not fully in accord with his own
cast-iron views of an Episcopacy. It was subsequently published and .?100 voted
the author out of the profits of the Concern, said profits being sacredly de-
voted by its charter to the " superannuated and worn out-preachers, their
widows and orphans." My pen has indited the offenders as dishonest, but the
sober thought comes, as it never came to the maligners and traducers of these
early Reformers, that may be it was not moral turpitude, but human infirmity
and bitter prejudice.

EMOBY AND McCAINE WRESTLING 181

and Forrest, who agree that it was not mentioned by Coke or
Asbury as "recommending any form of government."

"The Prayer Book of 1786." In this McCaine is at his best
and Emory at his worst ; not that the first is the superior dialec-
tician, but because McCaine so clearly has the case. The ground
has already been traversed in the first volume, and no more
than a condensed statement can here be made. McCaine reviews
it under three heads. First, as to Dr. Coke's agency in the pub-
lication of this prayer book. The facts as to the edition of 1784,
sent over "in sheets," as Emory says, have already been recited,
so that the gist of the contention is in the query : second, why
did Dr. Coke reprint it so soon after in England and at the press
of "Frys and Couchman," and not on Wesley's press? The
answer made in the first volume is the only one that can be made
that will quadrate with all the facts ; namely, the edition sent by
Wesley, Coke had bound up with the Minutes of the Conference
of 1784, writing the brief historical preface to the Discipline
himself, with Asbury's sanction, in which not a syllable occurs
intimating that the Church was organized episcopally by Wes-
ley's "counsel" as "recommendation," and was intended for
Wesley's perusal; and in it the word "Bishop" does not occur as
synonymous with "Superintendent," as is made to appear in the
edition of 1795, printed by Dickins. While there is no direct
evidence, as the original minutes in manuscript from 1784 to
1794 are not in existence, those from which the edition of 1795
were printed probably going into the waste-basket of the printing-
office, the general receptacle of "copy" and "proofs," yet it is
amenable to reason that Dr. Coke, who had been cautioned by
Wesley " in the most solemn manner " not to assume the title of
Bishop in America, as Moore asserts, would not have presumed
to so print the minutes of 1784 making the terms interchange-
able, without having administered to him then and there by
anticipation the stinging rebuke Wesley did administer in his
letter to Asbury, when he at last was compelled to see that in this
his instructions had been wantonly violated. Emory makes nine
queries in an attempt to explain this matter, and resorts to a
common subterfuge with him in knotty cases, in that he ushers
them in with a " probable " or a " presumable ; " two with an
"if;" only one is set down as "certain," and that is not in
dispute ; that Wesley required a minute account from Coke of the
American proceedings, a point covered in the first volume. In-
deed, Emory utterly fails to explain, and offers but a single

182 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

suggestion of any weight; to wit, that the firm of Frys and
Couchman was sometimes employed by Wesley to do printing,
and instances the second volume of the Arminian Magazine. The
plant of this firm and Wesley's was in the same building, and
this convenience was no doubt under a pressure of work availed
of at times; but the burden of evidence is that Wesley cannot
be connected as assenting to this second edition of the prayer
book for America, as he had undoubtedly sent over with Dr. Coke
enough to supply the demand for a much longer period than six
months; that Coke issued the second at his own expense, and
sundry other facts, McCaine marshals ; that the reason for this
publication is found in the fact that it represents Wesley as
approving by implication all that was done in 1784 as intended
for the American market, and so carrying out the illusion that
Coke and Asbury had followed Wesley's instructions in every-
thing, an opinion, as found, which prevailed among the preachers
until these discoveries of McCaine. The third point made by
Emory is a challenge : " Where is the evidence that he [Wesley]
ever disavowed them " (that is, the doings of the Christmas Con-
ference)? McCaine answers: "To the most superficial reader it
is plain that it is not by the absence of evidence of the disavowal
of the 'proceedings of Dr. Coke, Mr. Asbury, and the Conference
of 1784' that Mr. Wesley's approbation of those proceedings,
and his recognition of the title 'Methodist Episcopal Church,' are
to be proved. As well might A say that his title to an estate was
valid, because B could not produce a title to the same estate."
The burden is not properly upon McCaine, but upon those, in-
cluding Dr. Emory, who all along affirmed that he did so approve.
Under the succeeding section McCaine comments upon the
unaccountable misrepresentation Emory makes; to wit, he had
alleged that Coke's name was left off the British minutes of 1785,
whereas his assertion was that it was 1786, and the fact is as he
states : an error more gross than- the one into which McCaine
had fallen as to the statistical blunder of the minutes of 1791 of
thirteen thousand members ; and in his zeal to show that friendly
relations existed between Coke and Wesley to the latter' s death,
he tells his readers that John Wesley stationed Coke with Charles
Wesley in London in 1790, whereas Charles had died in 1788.
When his attention was called to this blunder by Hon. P. B.
Hopper, he squirmed under it, claiming that he could not account
for it, as he had " the minutes of the British Conference open
before me." He wishes the error to be condoned in him, but in

DISPUTANTS FAIRLY TREATED 183

McCaine he is unwilling to condone an error into which the
printed Minutes directly led him.1 Under " Mr. Asbury " the
discussion of his connection with the organization of the Church
in 1784 is pursued exhaustively, but as all this has been weighed
and analyzed in the former volume, no more need be said of
it. "Testimonies of English Methodists" follows, but McCaine
meets it with overwhelming counter testimony, the principal aver-
ments being amply sustained, that " there exists no document in
which the words Methodist Episcopal Church were ever written
by Mr. Wesley " ; and that the British Conference never recog-
nized the title until after the fraternal visit of Dr. Emory in 1820.
Acknowledging his visit to the General Conference of 1824, they
recognize the Church title for the first time ; forty years after
it was assumed by the Christmas Conference. Eeflecting, as they
must have done, Wesley's views, nothing more would be neces-
sary to reasonable minds as irrefragable proof that he, and the
British Conference after him, purposely repudiated the official
doings of 1784 as connecting Wesley with them, either as giving
"counsel" or "recommending" what was done. In all these
points McCaine must be allowed scores against his opponent.

"Section XI., Dr. Coke," pursues the question of the Address
of the bishops to Washington, heretofore fully considered. In
this Emory has the advantage, inasmuch as McCaine allowed
himself to be misled by the chronological disorder of Drew's
"Life of Coke," the average reader inevitably associating the
Address with 1785, instead of 1789, the true time. The writer
has confessed, however, that McCaine, as an educated man, a
school-teacher, and intimately acquainted with the history of the
United States, ought to have known better, and the score must

1 This apparently trivial matter assumes importance when the fact is stated
that, originating in the' printed Minutes of 1795, by Dickins, who overlooked as
proof-reader this error of thirteen thousand in 171)1, it was perpetuated in the
Minutes printed in 1813, and carried forward into those printed in 1840, and so
stands to this day. And as to Emory's blunder anent Coke and Charles Wesley
stationed together in London in 1790, Emory in the Methodist Magazine was
compelled to acknowledge it, with a promise that at some future time he would
revise his whole pamphlet (how much it needed it has been shown) ; he did not
live to do so. Curious to know whether any subsequent book committee had done
it in the several editions of the " Defence of Our Fathers " which were issued, the
writer recently purchased a copy of the edition issued under " Hunt and Eaton,"
only to find that this error is perpetuated, and no revision ever made of the
pamphlet, so that the young preachers on trial of the Methodist Episcopal Church
were taught it as a part of the " course of study," for some forty years, or down
to about 1870, when it was dropped out, a modern race of Methodist preachers not
appreciating the work of Emory so extravagantly lauded in his own day.

184 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

be given to Emory. McCaine wrestles with it, but appears to
have been so befogged by it that no satisfactory solution is
reached by him. A few facts are patent: Coke's name is
found omitted from the British minutes in 1786 and in 1790. In
the last case all parties admit that it was a punitive act of the
Conference for British disloyalty in joining with Asbury in the
Address to Washington of 1789. In 1786, finding his name also
omitted, McCaine reached the conclusion that it was also punitive
for the part he took in organizing the American Church, exceed-
ing his authority, and disregarding the instructions Wesley gave
him in the " little sketch " of government he had intrusted to
him. It must also be admitted that leaving the name off the
official minutes was by these early Methodist preachers accounted
a punitive act; possibly it had exceptions, but none has been pro-
duced. So that the question crystallizes : Why was it omitted
in 1786? Either McCaine's construction must be admitted, or
the limping explanation of Emory must be accepted as satisfac-
tory; what was it? That while his name does not occur in the
official minutes for 1786, yet Wesley in the Arminian Magazine
for that year mentions him as set down for "America," he having
been appointed by Wesley to act as missionary to Nova Scotia,
and "was not expected to return until the next year." It is
needful only to repeat what was said when the subject was treated
in the first volume, "the explanation does not explain." The
case is a desperate one for Emory; he resorts to the subter-
fuge in order to make exceptions as punitive acts, the omission
of Wesley's name by the American Conference in 1787, in the
very face of the fact that this was manifestly punitive; the
omissions of Asbury's name in 1778, etc., for "prudential
reasons ; " but it is not at all certain that this instance was not
punitive as well, for his former high-handed measures, as the
Conference was now controlled by the Gatch-Dickins-O'Kelly
regulars on a Presbyterian basis.

Emory's effort to palliate the censure of the British Con-
ference of Coke in 1790, by an ingenious but disingenuous
piece of mosaic work of extracts from Drew, making but a
printed page, having the appearance of a closely connected
citation^ while in fact made up of fragments woven together
out of forty-three pages of Drew, though at the close of it
Emory says: "Life of Coke," pp. 102-145, was also exposed, but
the point made by McCaine is immaterial, and the argument may
be considered a draw.

McCAINE'S recapitulation summarized 185

Under " Methodist Episcopacy " McCaine notes that there is
nothing to observe not already considered except the remarkable
dictum of Emory, "The Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal
Church have no control whatever over the decisions of either a
general or an annual conference," and floors him by citing his
own contrary opinion in the famous address just before the Con-
ference of 1820, " that a brother [Soule] just elected to the Epis-
copal office, and not yet ordained . . should thus by a strong
hand arrest the operation of resolutions . . . passed after long
and solemn debate . . . concurred in by more than two-thirds of
the general conference, and two-thirds of the episcopacy itself,"
etc. Under the title "Bishop" he notices Emory's quibble that
the American Conference did not title Wesley as a "bishop," but
as exercising the "episcopal office," already exposed in the first
volume. Another score for McCaine. Three sections that follow
before the recapitulation are so little to the purpose, and have
been incidentally considered in the preceding ones, as well as in
the first volume, that McCaine's Recapitulation may now be
brought forward.

In this masterful Recapitulation, first of the " Defence of the
Truth," he sums up twenty-four facts as established by it, and
again challenges the proof that he had " misrepresented " any of
them. He then sums up the whole argument in demonstration
of his original allegation, that " Methodist Episcopacy was sur-
reptitiously " introduced in 1784. In other places he denominates
it a " fraud " and as " foisted upon the Church " ; and if there can
be extenuation of such bald, brusque designations, it is in Asbury's
estimate of the man and his "honest bluntness." Yet to the
Methodists of that day and every day since such appellations
were and are extremely offensive, and to the large majority who
then read and now read nothing but Bond and Emory, accounts for
the fact that the deep prejudice then engendered has not yet died
out of the Methodist Episcopal Church after seventy years against
the leaders of Reform in 1827-30; against the "radicals" and
Methodist Protestants of all after years. McCaine gives thirty-
seven reasons for his belief, which have never been successfully
refuted.1 A number of them are not material to his argument,

1 Rev. Dr. Collins Denny, of the M. E. Church, South, called my attention to an
apparent confusion of McCaine as to Wesley's name being left off the Minutes
from 1785 to 1789, and the statements of the Discipline for the same period.
Wesley's name does occur in the Discipline in connection with the resolution of
1784 to obey him in all matters pertaining to authority. That resolution was
expunged in 1787, and Wesley's name went out with it as already found. It was

186 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

though all of them are germane. To restate them would not only
occupy much space, but repeat what has been traversed in this
work and which it is assumed the reader has not forgotten. The
material points may be summarized as follows : Mr. Wesley " set
apart " Dr. Coke to be a " general superintendent " coordinate in
authority with Asbury in the government of the American socie-
ties. He was induced to do this by the clamor for the ordinances
in America, and the declaration that these societies " wished to
continue under his care," as he recites himself in the preamble
to Dr. Coke's "letter of appointment." He admits that the
Revolutionary War had absolved them from their British alle-
giance and to the Established Church of England, leaving them,
in his own words, " at full liberty to follow the Scriptures and
the primitive Church." Dr. Phoebus, a member of the Christmas
Conference, confirms this : " Mr. Wesley recommended to us the
New Testament for our pattern." He farther says, "I have
drawn up a little sketch" for the government of the societies,
with Coke and Asbury as his subordinates, and this little sketch
is the same in substance as the "plan of Church government"
"Henry Moore" certifies he had prepared for this purpose.1 He

restored in 1789, continued in 1790, and would probably have been continued longer
if his decease in 1791 had not made it unnecessary for reasons already given.
How much this affects McCaine's argument in this instance the critical reader
can determine. Dr. Denny thinks it breaks down this part of McCaine's aver-
ments.

1 Rev. T. A. Kerley, in his work, 1898, " Conference Rights," before referred
to in a foot-note, says of this matter, " I have drawn up a little sketch," as found
in Wesley's letter to the American Methodists in 1784, " that it was the letter
it •"•If," overlooking the fact that in this case Wesley, as a master of intelligent
English, would have said, " I have drawn up this little sketch." It is not more
puerile, however, than Dr. Emory's explanation.

In addition to this answer, held to be conclusive as to the averment that the
" little sketch " and the Circular Letter in which the declaration as to it is found,
are not the same and identical, the writer deems it proper to traverse it still farther.
In a fraternal conversation with Rev. Dr. Collins Denny at my own residence in
May, 1898, the same position was firmly taken by him as to the identity of the
" Sketch" and the Circular, buttressed by the averment that "the burden of
proof " was with those who denied it; that nothing could shake the position logi-
cally but the production by them of the "little sketch" itself. The writer an-
swered that in his view the precise converse was the true position logically, and
that it was for those who claimed the identity of the " sketch " with the " Circu-
lar" to prove it. And the grounds of this averment are in part: first, the Cir-
cular is an authentic document, and in the body of it averment is made by its
author of the preparation of another document, " I have drawn up a little sketch."
Second, as supported by Henry Moore, already cited in the first volume, where
the question is also considered that " Mr. Wesley" " informed Dr. Coke of his de-
sign of drawing up a plan of church government , and of establishing an ordination
f:ir his American societies. But cautious of entering on so new a plan, he after-

"A LITTLE SKETCH" EXHAUSTIVELY CONSIDERED 187

had peremptorily and solemnly forbidden Dr. Coke to take the
title of Bishop in the plan of government, thereby indicating not
only that he had no idea that by his " setting apart " and " ap-
pointing " (he nowhere uses the term " ordain " in the connection)
as a Superintendent that he was creating a third-order officer, or
gave authority to Coke to constitute Asbury such an officer. He
also armed Coke with a letter of authority, called his ordination
certificate, and a letter to the societies for their " use " and to be
"published " to this end. Coke, on his arrival in America, prob-
ably showed the " little sketch " of government to Dickins, the
first American preacher he met, who declared that it was authori-
tative and needed only to be promulgated and obeyed. After
conference with Asbury at a private house at the Barratt chapel
meeting, Asbury dissented to the plan of the "little sketch,"
and no doubt gave Coke some sound enough reasons for it, as the

ward suspended the execution of his purpose and weighed the whole for upward of
a year." The italics are by the writer. See Moore's " Life of Wesley," American
edition, 1825, pp. 272, 273. On the same page, 273, he quotes the Circular Let-
ter, but gives no hint that it was " the plan of church government," prepared in
1783, or a year before the Circular letter. Third, the interpretation by which the
" sketch " and the Circular are declared one is forced, and will not bear the light
of common-sense English, such as Wesley or Coke would have used in such a
case, as set forth in the first paragraph of this note in answer to Dr. Kerley.
Fourth, the view is new with Drs. Denny and Kerley, no other Methodist annal-
ist for a hundred years attempting so to explain it. Fifth, the Circular letter is
not a " plan of church government for his American societies," intended for

the guidance of his " Assistants," Coke and Asbury, but a Letter to the Societies
which he ordered printed and circulated among them. Sixth, all the collateral
facts are against the logical probability that the " sketch " and the Circular are
one and the same. Seventh, recent investigation has brought to light the fact
that among the Notes to the Discipline of 1796, quoting from the tenth edition,
1798, page 49, top paragraph, the following statement is made : " When Mr. Wes-
ley drew up apian of government for our church in America, he desired that no
more elders should be ordained in the first instance than were absolutely neces-
sary, and that the work on the continent should be divided between them in re-
spect to the duties of their office. The general conference accordingly elected
twelve elders for the above purpose," etc.* The italics are by the writer, to point
out the similarity of the language with Moore's account and Wesley's account in
the Circular letter: " I have drawn up a little sketch," "drawing up a plan,"
" drew up a plan," etc. Evidently this reference in the notes, as cited, reveals
one fact as to the "plan of government" contained in "a little sketch," as
given from memory by Coke and Asbury, and as it is not found in the Circular
Letter, it is proof conclusive that the " sketch " and the " Circular " are not one
and the same. Eighth, and finally, it is antecedently a moral certainty that
Wesley would have sent written directions, a true "plan of government," for
the direction and control of his assistants, Coke and Asbury, as he sent the " Cir-
cular Letter " specifically for the information and direction of the Societies.

* Lee, in his " History," pp. 94, 95, says : " At this conference there were thirteen preachers
elected to the Elder's office," and he gives their names. And so does Coke in his Journal. See
Dr. Tigert's limited edition, pp. 13, 14.

188 HISTOBY OF METHODIST REFORM

latter confesses that he was compelled to concur in them, where-
upon a brief council with ten of the nearest preachers was held, who
were not told the contents of the "sketch," but were simply com-
forted with the assurance that Wesley had yielded at last to their
solicitations as to the matter of the ordinances, and Asbury pro-
posed a general conference immediately of all the preachers with
the purpose of forming a Church.1 Wesley never authorized nor
dreamed of such a Conference to pass upon what he had done, as
it did not for a moment enter into his plan to establish a Church
of Methodists in America. Prior to the assembling of the Christ-
mas Conference Coke and Asbury, at Perry Hall, concocted a
Church organization, and opened their plan to the Conference
after it had assembled. It was to be an American Methodist
Episcopal Church, with three orders of ministers, under exclusive
ministerial rule; and that it might have the semblance of Wes-
ley's approval, the "little sketch" was suppressed, and finally
destroyed, as it has never seen the light; Coke's letter of appoint-
ment was not made known to the Conference because of its clear
implications that he could not have given " counsel " or " recom-
mended" what was being done, but intended, as carrying out
their wishes, to "continue under his care," that they should be
an autonomy, but, like that of the English societies, absolutely
under his control while he lived. The Letter to the Societies
was suppressed in a whole paragraph of it relative to the use of
the abridged Prayer Book he had sent over, because it also plainly
implicated his own absolute control. Not willing to break utterly
with Wesley, and fearing to return and render an account to him
of these misdoings as to his purpose, Coke secured the consent of
Asbury that they should be denominated "superintendents," not
daring in this to openly disobey his instructions, which he un-
doubtedly made known to Asbury, as to the title of Bishop; and
also to incorporate a resolution that during Wesley's life they
would in matters of church government be controlled by him.
All these allegations have already been incontestably proven in
this work. Further, it is in proof that the historical sketch to the

1 Six out of the ten of these neighborhood preachers dissented to Asbury's plan
for an Episcopal government, but they agreed to a call for a General Conference.
See the facts set forth in a series of articles, "Methodist Chronology," by
" W. C. P.," (W. C. Pool) in second volume of Methodist Protestant, No. 34, for
August 24, 1832, on page 268 of bound volume. The evidence is important as
showing that the Episcopacy of Asbury and Coke was not only without Wesley's
knowledge and consent at the time, but it was unacceptable to those preachers,
who were first consulted, at least a full moiety of them.

SUMMATION OF INCONTESTABLE EVIDENCE 189

first Discipline makes no mention of its being formulated by-
Wesley's counsel and recommendation of an Episcopal Church,
for the reason that such a bald misstatement would have been
detected by Wesley when it came under his eye. The Min-
utes and Discipline, as published by Dickins in 1795, contain
a very different historical statement as to the organization of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, but this was four years after Wes-
ley's decease. In fine, these several historical accounts were
doctored by Coke and Asbury to suit the exigencies and make it
appear to future generations that the Christmas Conference and
its doings had Wesley's approval. The certificate of ordination
of Coke was not exhibited until Drew, Coke's biographer, ex-
humed it from his posthumous papers; Coke, Asbury, and
Moore suppressed their knowledge of Wesley's solemn charge to
the first not to take the title of Bishop, the first two during
their lives, and the last for forty years after it occurred. Add
these allegations as matters of fact to those before given, and
the reader has a catenation of proofs on which McCaine based
his blunt declaration that the system of government inaugurated
in 1784 was " surreptitiously " introduced by the prime actors
in it.

The writer will put it again mildly, as a conclusion to which
every impartial reader must come, thaj the proceedings were
unjustifiable and unwarrantable in the premises. They are suffi-
ciently grave to demand that the historical preface to the book
of Discipline, if not entirely expunged in the interests of the
truth of history, as in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South,
shall be so modified as to relieve Mr. Wesley of the imputation
that he was the author of the church polity now known as Metho-
dist Episcopacy. 1 The reader who would see the case categorically

1 See Rev. Dr. Warren's article in Methodist Magazine for January-February,
1892, entitled "The Portico to Our Book of Discipline." It treats of the very
section of the M. E. Discipline bearing upon this subject, and which he declares
"misleads the reader," and proposed a substitute section which relieved Wesley
of the unverifiable statement that he originated the Episcopal system in American
Methodism. The ensuing General Conference, however, the matter not having
been brought forward, did nothing toward correcting this canonized fable. It
will yet however be done. Still it stands in the nervous words of Dr. Stephens :
"as a matter of fact that this misleading declaration, false to fact and false to
history, was embalmed in the place of honor in the Discipline of the Methodist
Episcopal Church. There it stands to-day, a fable apotheosized, a monumental
testimony to the weakness of great minds, the canonization of error intended to
mislead, the evidence of the unscrupulous ambition of the first American Bishops,
and of the over-credulity of the early Methodist preachers."

190 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

stated is referred to McCaine's thirty-seven reasons at the con-
clusion of his "Defence of the Truth." Could Asbury have been
content to wait, and meantime accept Wesley's plan for the seven
years that intervened to his death, this scandal would have been
anticipated; but he. was impatient of Wesley's supervision, and
made the coming of Coke the occasion to carry out the matured
purpose of years, — his Episcopal headship for the American
Methodists. That the same result would probably have ensued
had he deferred action until after Wesley's decease may be ad-
mitted; the same force of personal magnetism and dominating
will that carried the preachers with him under the exceptional
circumstances named, would have carried in 1792, and forestalled
the revolt and secession of O'Kelly. That there were not a
few extenuations of Coke and Asbury's course may be admitted,
and, in view of human infirmities, of ambition and errors of
judgment, there is no need that moral turpitude should be
imputed.

The reader is now prepared to consider, maugre the glamour of
rhetoric and the confidence of unqualified asseveration, the case
stated by Dr. Stevens, the third party to this controversy.
His argument, though but an imperfect rehash of the exploded
positions reviewed in these pages, has come down to this day;
with Methodist Episcopalians entirely satisfactory. True, he
directs his attack more against the Protestant Episcopal church-
men, who ridicule the pretensions of Episcopal Methodists, and
not against the impregnable positions of McCaine. Indeed, it is
doubtful if Stevens ever read McCaine, or a man of his average
fairness would have been deterred from such overconfident dicta.
Traversing it carefully, as the writer has just done, and he invites
the reader to do the same (see "History of Methodism," Vol. II.
ch. vii.), nothing is found new to the question not already
covered. There is, however, one fatal admission which invali-
dates the whole: "If Wesley's strong repugnance to the mere
name of bishop had been expressed before its adoption by the
American Church, it would probably not have been adopted."
The sufficient answer is, as shown, that three men possessed the
fact at the time, and they suppressed it : Henry Moore, Thomas
Coke, and Francis Asbury. The logical inevitable is, that men
who could and did suppress this one fact in the service of a common
cause inimical to Wesley's intentions, could and did suppress all
the other facts which render invalid Dr. Stevens's argument
and that of every historian who has attempted to vindicate the

STEVENS'S ARGUMENT ANSWERED 191

real authors of Methodist Episcopacy. He may be dismissed by
repeating, as applicable to himself and those who think with
him, his own summary disposal : " The man who gainsays such
evidence must be given up as incorrigible. There can be no
reasoning with him."

CHAPTER XI

Surcease of expulsions in Baltimore after Dr. Bond's return from the General
Conference for strategic reasons, but extensively renewed elsewhere — Dr.
Sellers's defection, and the effect of the action of the General Conference on
Reformers of several grades — Dr. Buckley on " rights " ; Alexander McCaine's
settler for him and others ; Buckley on " withdrawal " of the Reformers ana-
lyzed— Organization of Reformers in Baltimore, and purchase of St. John's
church; the first realty — First " Methodist " church of Pittsburgh; the whole
history of the contention as never before presented — Reform in Cincinnati as
early as 1822 ; Union Society of 1825 ; expulsions and Rev. Truman Bishop's
untimely death; Asa Shinn formally withdraws from the old Church — Pro-
ceedings against Reformers in North Carolina ; leaders in the movement on
both sides — Lynchburg, Va., expulsions and organization of Reformers — Ten-
nessee expulsions and organization of Reformers — The Mutual Bights and
Christian Intelligencer, with Dorsey, editor.

At the close of the General Conference of 1828, Dr. Bond
returned to Baltimore feathered and flushed with victory over his
quondam friends of Beform. Having achieved his object, the
pacific strategy was once more resorted to, as no man knew better
than he the intrinsic worth to Methodism and the high personal
character of the men and women whose cause he had forsaken,
and whom he well understood could not be browbeaten into sub-
mission. For the time the prosecutions ceased in Maryland.
The position of the Church as defined by the action of the Gen-
eral Conference in its Beport upon the Memorial of the Beformers
could not be misunderstood, and the effect was as might be
expected: it utterly discouraged the large latent element in the
Church who favored Beform, but with bated breath awaited the
turning of the scale. These, as well as many of stronger con-
victions, who could not face the cost of heroic struggle for a
principle with all the odds against them, subsided and put away
whatever evidence they had shown of sympathy with the move-
ment.1 Fifty years after, Bishop M'Tyeire, whose knowledge of

1 A notable example was the case of Dr. Sellers, brother-in-law to Dr. John
Emory. During the Reform years preceding 1828, no man in Maryland had more
pronounced opinions than he, derived, it may be, from Dr. Emory, not, he says,
as to the elective eldership, but lay rights. The tergiversation of Emory, how-

192

"RIGHTS" AND "WITHDRAWAL" CONSIDERED 193

the subject was derived from partisan sources, and speaking from
a point of view which limited his retrospection, yet more fairly
presented than by the earlier historians of Methodism, says:
"But now when the radical tendencies of these things were seen,
the conservatives closed ranks and stood firm. . . . Thoughtful
men must not be counted on to join in a theoretical and destruc-
tive reform because every pin and screw in the tabernacle that
has sheltered them is not exactly to their notion. " 1 In this he
speaks as one of the " divinely authorized expounders " who alone
have rights in the Methodist Church. Yes, the " conservatives
closed ranks," — having finally lost their own contention, being
overweighted by the Episcopal power, the ministerial right to
elect presiding elders, — they lost interest, and, indeed, were
surprised, not a few of them, when the Church itself, as repre-
sented by its membership, was awakened to a consciousness that
they also must, in the nature of the case and the New Testament
precedents of church polity, have rights which they humbly
petitioned might be restored to them. Yes, against these rights
they closed ranks. Eights! they were nothing but the "pins and
screws of the tabernacle that had sheltered them," and all this
ado because it is not "exactly to their notion." Yes, it was, and
still is, largely the cavalier treatment of a great fundamental
principle of Representation.

Have the prevailing sentiments of a later day than M'Tyeire's
changed any? Not a jot or tittle. There is something in the
fumes of vested power that keeps the brains of otherwise clear-
headed men fuddled when they talk or write on this subject in the
Methodist Episcopal Church. As late as September, 1890, Dr.

ever, naturally affected him, so that on his removal to Pittsburgh in 1827 his ac-
tive participation in Reform grew weaker, and after the action of the General
Conference of 1828, he ceased to cooperate altogether. But there is no evidence
that he changed his opinions. Even in the letter he wrote Robert Emory for the
biography of his father, the Bishop, at the solicitation of Robert in 1839, he utters
no word that can be construed into a change of sentiment on his part, but he dis-
tinctly states that lay-representation was the objective of his efforts at the time.
Why, then, did he give over advocating the principle? For the same, and even
stronger reasons, as he was allied to Emory by marriage, that induced hundreds
of others to give over public cooperation. He found his family and social ties,
his business interests, as a physician, and perhaps more than all, the seeming
hopelessness of the struggle, under the combination against it, for some years to
come, if ever. He bent to the storm, as did hundreds of others when called upon
to face the tremendous odds against them, so that no estimate of the extent of
Reform sentiments can be drawn from the comparative few who, " sink or swim,
survive or perish," openly identified themselves with the Associated Reformers.
1 " History of Methodism," p. 573.

VOL. II — o

194 HISTORY OF METHODIST 11EF011M

Buckley, editor of the New York Christian Advocate, everywhere
acknowledged as a representative man of his Church, thus dis-
courses on the question : " The whole system of Methodism, like
every other church government, is a compromise of natural rights
for cooperation. Church government does not derive its just
powers primarily from the consent of the governed, but from the
Word and Providence of God. It can never consistently work
direct injustice and oppression; but can and does require the
surrender of all abstract 'rights,' the surrender of which is
necessary to its existence, authority, and greatest efficiency. It
derives its working power from the 'consent of the governed,' for
if they will not consent they have power to 'go out from it.'"
In the same connection, September 11, he also makes the bald
declaration, " The Reformers of 1820 were allowed to withdraw,
and formed a new sect." Dr. Bond was given credit, earlier in
this volume, for having created all the arguments which have
since become stock against the Reformers of 1820, and every year
since. In the first of the citations made from Dr. Buckley he
simply rehearses Dr. Bond, though it may be unconsciously. At
the time this writer in the Methodist Protestant summarily dis-
posed of the medley of misstatements and fallacies as follows :
"Methodist Episcopacy was not a 'compromise of natural rights,'
but a well-defined usurpation of them. See the facts of history
anent it. The Word shows conclusively that the governed gave
their consent and the just powers were derived from them. See
the Acts of the Apostles. The Methodist Episcopal brethren lay
great stress, when the anomalies of their government are under
review, on the 'Providence of God' as responsible for them.
That is to say, facetiously, they were not created by good men
who loved the preeminence, but, like Topsey in 'Uncle Tom's
Cabin,' they 'just growed.' Their system has worked dire injus-
tice and oppression; witness the private history of many an itin-
erant, and the whole history of the Reform movement. The
argument of last resort of the anti-reformers of 1820-30 was, if
you don't like it, leave. So says Dr. Buckley."

But that this matter of rights may be finally disposed of, let
Alexander McCaine take Dr. Buckley in hand, as he did Drs.
Emory and Bond, in his analysis of the Report of 1828. "If
the preachers had this right 'it must be either a natural or
acquired right. If a natural right, then being founded in nature
it must be common to men as men.' According to this reason-
ing, if the preachers, 'as men,' had a 'natural right' to choose

THE ARGUMENT ON BOTH SIDES 195

for themselves what form of government they pleased, the mem-
bers, 'as men,' had a 'natural right ' to choose a form of govern-
ment for themselves likewise. Nay, the members had as good a
right to choose a government for the preachers as the preachers
had to form one for the members. ' If it be alleged to be an
acquired right, then it must have been acquired either in conse-
quence of becoming Christians, or of becoming Methodists. If
the former, it devolves on those Methodist preachers, or their
advocates, who may assert that the preachers in 1784 had a right
to choose the episcopal form of government for the societies to
'prove that this right is conferred by the Holy Scriptures; and
it is also binding on them to prove that the Scriptures impose
on ' the members, 'the corresponding obligation to grant the
claim.' The Holy Scriptures gave no authority to Methodist
preachers, to adopt the episcopal form of government for the
Methodist societies when the church was organized ; of course no
right can be proved from them. Or if the latter be alleged, viz.,
that it has been acquired in consequence of becoming Methodists,
then it must have been either by some conventional compact or
by some obligatory principle, in the economy of Methodism, to
which as then organized the claimants voluntarily attached them-
selves. That the preachers derived a right to adopt the episco-
pal form of government from any 'conventional compact' no one
will affirm; for no such 'compact' was ever made. Indeed, the
societies were not even consulted, much less a 'conventional com-
pact ' entered into. That the preachers did not derive a right
from any 'obligatory principle in the economy of Methodism ' is
equally evident. For it was the peculiar glory of Methodism,
'as then organized,' to receive into its societies 'all who desired
to flee from the wrath to come. ' If any were expelled from the
fellowship of the Methodists, they were not thereby excommuni-
cated from their own churches. Expulsion from the one did not
imply expulsion from the other. These were the 'principles of
Methodism as then organized,' and from these principles the
travelling preachers derived no right to organize a church and
adopt the episcopal form of government for the societies without
their consent." This is an elaborate disposition of the whole
matter of rights, and a demonstration offered, that antecedently
nothing can be claimed for the preachers which cannot by ana-
logical reasoning be claimed for the membership.

As to Dr. Buckley's second declaration, "The Reformers of
1820 were allowed to withdraw, and formed a new sect," except

196 HI8T0BY OF METHODIST REFORM

the last sentence, it is neither true in whole nor in part. At the
time of its publication, before the writer could put his editorial
pen into it, Dr. J. J. Murray of Maryland, not given to rash and
unbrotherly treatment of our Old Side preachers, felt impelled to
its review, and it was published in lieu of an editorial answer.
It is courteous, though searching, and, though marked copies were
sent in addition to the regular exchanges of the papers, and request
made in various subsequent numbers for retraction of the state-
ment, no notice was ever taken of it. Now, while it is true that
the next best thing for the offender, when detected in a misstate-
ment, to a frank and honorable correction of it, is silence on his
part, and as this was not the first offence, Dr. Buckley may credit
his discourtesy with this perpetuation of his fault to posterity.
Kare, indeed, have been the instances in which the press of our
sister Church has corrected unhistorical averments as to the con-
troversy of 1820-30. In most cases they are made through dense
ignorance of the facts, while in others even charity will not allow
an excuse. As to the misstatement itself, look at the naked facts.
" The Reformers of 1820 were allowed to withdraw." Has it not
been shown that instead they were expelled ; and has it not been
shown that those who withdrew did so without being " allowed "
to do it? The only sense in which this could be true is that those
so withdrawing were furnished, at their request, with certificates
of membership or testimonials of good standing. It has been, and
shall be more fully, proven, that in no known instance was this
ever granted, though almost always requested. If these requests
had been complied with, then with some shadow of truth it might
be said "they were allowed to withdraw." But as the case
stands, this averment of a high official of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church is neither true in whole nor in part. The only thing
it evidences is, as nervously expressed by a recent writer, "the
vitality of a historic lie." x

The reverse effect of the action of the General Conference was
also exhibited. "For the accommodation of themselves, their
families, and such of their fellow-citizens as are desirous of
worshipping God with them, the brethren have purchased St.
John's church, in Liberty Street, a handsome and commodious
house, in which they have public worship three times each Sab-
bath, and the Christian ordinances duly administered. . . . The
attending congregation is large and respectable. The members
of both Union Societies regularly attend and worship with their

1 Exceptions to the rule noted later as discovered by the writer.

REFORM CONVENTIONS CALLED FOR NOV 1828 197

expelled brethren." The pulpit was filled by the expelled min-
isters and preachers, as well as by Snethen, Dorsey, Pool, and
M. M. Henkle, when the last was in the city. This was un-
doubtedly the first piece of church realty held by the Associated
Reformers. The " Methodist Church in the City of Pittsburgh,"
without the "Episcopal," was incorporated by the legislature of
Pennsylvania, March 5, 1828, a case to be considered presently.
The facts stated as to the purchase of St. John's are published in
the Mutual Rights for May, 1828. How long it was before that
date the writer has not been able to ascertain, but as the property
was then, in fact and law, held by the Reformers, its priority
can scarcely be challenged. They were regularly organized as a
society of "The Associated Methodist Reformers" under the
conventional agreement of November, 1827. At the June,
1828, meeting of the Society fifty-two were received, nearly all
of them from the Methodist Episcopal Church, and most of them
of long standing. Rev. Dennis B. Dorsey, William C. Pool,
and William Bawden were received as members and ministers of
the association. Daniel Gildea, whose license to exhort had
been withheld by the Quarterly Conference on account of being a
member of the Union Society, was received and duly licensed.
He was a venerable man, and one of Wesley's converts. At the
monthly meeting for July thirty -three more were received. These
increased the association to over 214 members. "The expelled
preachers stand higher in public estimation than they did previous
to their expulsion. The citizens view them as good men persecuted
for righteousness' sake ; and the ministers of other denominations
frequently call upon them to officiate to their congregations."1
Everywhere the Union Societies resolved to continue their
organization until the Convention, now called by the Committee,
to whom it was intrusted by the November meeting, to assemble
at St. John's church, Baltimore, November 10, 1828. Delegates
were requested to report, on their arrival in the city, to James
R. Williams, John J. Harrod, and Dr. S. K. Jennings, to be
assigned to homes. It was a crucial period in Reform, everything
depending upon the showing it would make at this Convention.
The lines were closely drawn, and the whole power, patronage,
and persuasive force of the Church brought to bear to prevent
withdrawals by every intimidation and influence possible. It is
safe to say that hundreds were so deterred. Baltimore Metho-
dism, with its three thousand members, among whom Reform was

i Mutual Rights, Vol. IV. p. 393.

198 HISTOBY OF METHODIST REFORM

dominant in 1826-27, now showed but a few hundred who were
ready to cast the die and accept the consequences of separation.
True, nearly half of these were male members of long and high
standing, and they carried with them the substantial sympathy
of the Christian community. Everywhere the same general
result was seen. Only those of heroic mould could face the sac-
rifice separation demanded, but, as will be seen, the numbers
were respectable and the fidelity to principle marked. The fourth
volume of the Mutual Rights concluded with the July number,
and its salient contents have already been given. By a business
compact among the Reformers of Baltimore, and patronage else-
where, it was succeeded by the Mutual Bights and Christian
Intelligencer, under the editorial control of Dennis B. Dorsey and
a committee of publication.

The scenes of active contention were transferred to Pittsburgh,
Cincinnati, North Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee. Let brief
consideration be given to these in order. There had been a strong
and dominating Reform influence at the First Methodist church
in the old First Street and new Smithfield Street churches (one
in corporation), Pittsburgh, Pa., from an early period. At the
time of the incorporation, March 5, 1828, seven of the nine trus-
tees and a large proportion of the membership were openly in
sympathy with the movement. August 4, 1828, the realty of the
church, consisting of the old and new church with a cemetery
property, was formally, on motion of Dr. H. D. Sellers, trans-
ferred to the new board of trustees, minus the word "Episcopal."
The reason has been a question in dispute. Eev. Dr. Brown says,
" It was most significantly left out of the charter, as indicating the
reform sentiment prevalent when the instrument was obtained."
But Rev. Dr. Charles W Smith, in a sermon on the centennial
of Methodism in Pittsburgh, says it was done to " give possible
grounds for perversion of the trust." The question on its merits
cannot be traversed here.1 Litigation followed between the par-
ties, into which the church was divided on Reform, with the

1 See "Closing Services of the First Methodist Protestant Church, Fifth
Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa., May 11-15, 1892." Pittsburgh. 1892. 8vo. 145 pp.
Cloth. Semi-centennial. The whole question as to the incorporation, and the
division of the property, and the outcome of the controversy on Reform is here
fully exposed, with a clear vindication of Charles Avery, the principal party to
the act of incorporation as to the motives impelling him in his course, as well as
of the Reformers of that day. The property built out of the proceeds of the one-
half value has since been disposed of to such advantage that two churches have
been erected out of it.

<

X

0
«

pq

W
o

W
a

P<

SCENES OF ACTIVE CONTENTIONS 199

result of a legal decision in favor of the Reformers. They, with
unprecedented fairness and generosity, agreed to take one-half
the value and surrender the properties to the adhering members.
No such example was ever set by the anti-reformers, however
equitable the claim might be to church property

In June, 1829, these Reformers sent a call to Rev. George
Brown, yet a minister in full standing in the old Church, to
become their pastor under a formal organization of an "Associated
Methodist Church." This led to his withdrawal from the Metho-
dist Episcopal Church, and acceptance of the call. An effort was
made to prevent his preaching in the Smithfield Street church,
but a compromise was effected by which the two parties held
Sabbath service twice a day at hours that did not conflict. But
this state of amity did not long continue. The anti-reformers
brought suit for the possession of the property, and while this
was pending disgraceful scenes occurred. The anti-reformers
took covert possession, removed the locks, and forbade the Re-
formers to enter. This trick was offset by a stealthy entry of the
Reformers, ending in another compromise and mutual occupancy.
The Reformers, that their title might not be invalidated, organ-
ized as the "Methodist Church in Pittsburgh." Much bitterness
prevailed among the contending parties. On one occasion the
Reformers' sexton, having made the preparation for the Lord's
Supper, the Presiding Elder asked who had prepared it, and, on
learning, said, " Take them away ; we want none of your radical
bread and wine." This same Elder, David Sharpe, at a camp-
meeting communion service, after inviting Christians of other
denominations, leaned over the pulpit stand, and said that the
"rads and schismatic scamps, he did not mean to invite them."
Meantime, the seven trustees and other Reformers were expelled
by the preacher in charge, Rev. William Lambdin. The suit at
law was not decided by the full bench of the Supreme Court until
October, 1832, with the result already narrated. The Reformers
numbered over two hundred. A statement says, " We have about
130 male members, among them 14 class leaders, 4 local preachers,
and 7 trustees. There are many female members, the number
not ascertained until they are arranged in classes." Many others
afterward united with them, making a strong, compact church of
great influence in the community.

As early as 1822 the Methodists of Cincinnati were aroused to
the true nature of their church government by the arbitrary
administration of the pastor, Leroy Swormstead, and his assist-

200 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

ant, John F. Wright, which led to a circular letter, August 9,
1823, strongly recommending the introduction of the representa-
tive principle into the polity. The charges which were preferred
against Swormstead for maladministration were dismissed by the
Ohio Conference. November 17, 1825, a Union Society was
formed by the Reformers, and with it almost all the old and
influential members united. In 1827, Rev. John F. Wright was
sent, as preacher in charge of the station. The church had some
years before been made a corporate body, and the nine trustees
annually elected were advocates of the reformation. On the 17th
of July fourteen members of the Society were met by a com-
mittee, appointed by the preacher, with a demand that they
withdraw from the Society and cease to patronize the Mutual
Bights. Charges were preferred, but so strong was the Reform
element that efforts to expel them failed. They were suspended
until the Quarterly Conference, when the accused demanded, as
was their disciplinary right, trial before the Church. This was re-
fused, and ten lay-members, after a mock trial before a committee
of Wright's selection, were expelled.1 After careful and prayer-
ful deliberation, the Reformers, bereft of all hope of redress from
the report of the General Conference of 1828, assembled, August
18, 1828, determined to unite with their expelled brethren, and
formed an organization of 279. Fifteen classes were organized,
and much sympathy was received from the religious community.
Rev. Truman Bishop, an itinerant of some years' good stand-
ing, who had retired on account of ill-health, resided in Cincin-
nati, and, though not a Reformer, was so impressed with the
proceedings of the General Conference of 1828 that he openly
expressed his dissent to the report of that body on Reform. The
brethren held their services in a public hall and invited Bishop
to preach for them. This he did, taking an oversight of them;
and met one of the classes a few times in the absence of the
leader. By his Conference brethren he was esteemed a holy
man, while his abilities were above mediocre. At the Ohio
Annual Conference he was charged with preaching for the Re-
formers and leading a class; and while, after much discussion,
his character passed, a resolution was also passed admonishing
him that he must no more preach for or assist the Reformers.
Such an arbitrary interference with his rights as a minister he
could not allow, and, in a dignified letter, he withdrew from the
Church of his choice and early labors with the statement, in part,

1 Williams's " History," pp. 241-260, for full text of these proceedings.

CASE OF REV. TRUMAN BISHOP 201

" Contrary to my former calculation I now retire from under the
jurisdiction of the Methodist Episcopal Church (which is near
and dear to me), for the reason that the command of the confer-
ence and the command of Jesus Christ given to me stand in direct
opposition to each other." He was then chosen pastor, but the
mental suffering and the treatment he had received, as his phy-
sicians testified to the best of their belief, induced a lingering
illness, which ended fatally, January 12, 1829. As the new
church on Sixth Street was not completed, his funeral took place
in the First Presbyterian church, the pastor officiating. His
decease was universally lamented, and emphasized the cause of
Eeform in the city.1 The brethren subsequently invited Rev.
Asa Shinn, who had now recovered from his mental fag and
aberration, to take charge of them. He accepted the invitation
and entered anew upon a ministry of great power in that city.
Shortly after, he formally withdrew from the Pittsburgh Confer-
ence and fully identified himself with the Eeformers. He once
more resumed his powerful pen, and various articles in their
periodicals were in proof of his complete recovery. He was now
forty-eight years of age, and for a number of years thereafter
bent all his energies in furtherance of Reform and the organiza-
tion of the Methodist Protestant Church.2

Earlier in this History an account was given of the proceedings
against Reformers in North Carolina. Eight lay-members had
been expelled on account of their opinions concerning church
polity. Twelve ministers had been cast out, seven of them after
a mock trial, and five by the more summary process of being
scratched off the records. Roanoke and Albemarle were the
centres of agitation, and the documentary evidence preserved
in Paris's "History" is among the most valuable of the Reform
archives. Under the leadership of such men as Dr. Bellamy, Ivy
Harris, W. W. Hill, Colonel S. Whitaker, James Hunter, Case-
well Drake, Rev. R. Davison, William Price, and Lewellyn Jones,
strong societies were organized, and the foundations laid for a
Conference unexcelled for fidelity to principle and zeal in the
cause of the Redeemer. The brethren were diligent in dissemi-
nating their purposes, and, having no periodical of their own,
made use of the Tarborough Free Press, and by this means reached

1 "The Remains of the late Rev. Truman Bishop," etc., by John Houghton.
Cincinnati. 1829. 8vo. 80 pp.

2 Brown's " Itinerant Life," and Bassett's " History," furnish many other val-
uable details for the West.

202 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

the eye of the Methodist community. But the charges and speci-
fications against Reformers being everywhere largely identical
and the proceedings summary, space cannot be given to the itera-
tion for every section of the country involved, and for not a few
localities nothing but bare mention can be made in these pages.
Equally worthy, the salient instances must answer for illustration.
In Virginia, Lynchburg and Northumberland County were
other fields of expulsion and secession. The amity proclaimed
by the General Conference was understood practically as applying
to Baltimore only, and that for strategic reasons of Dr. Bond.
Elsewhere, as found, no attention was paid to it, and mayhap
none was intended. Certainly the fell purpose to " expel Reform
out of the Church " was exhibited wherever the sentiment had
secured a menacing foothold. A meeting of Reformers was held
in Lynchburg, September 18, 1828, at which resolutions of sym-
pathy and approval were passed over the course of Reformers in
Baltimore, and delegates appointed to attend the November Con-
vention. It was attended by a large number of the most respect-
able citizens, being a public one, and was conducted in an orderly
and dignified manner, as became the object. Speedily thereafter
the preacher in charge, Rev. W. A. Smith, cited to trial two local
preachers and nine laymen for "endeavoring to sow dissensions
in our church by inveighing against the discipline." The laymen
were official members, and, after the same mockery of trial as
others had experienced elsewhere, they were expelled. Their
appeal to the Quarterly Conference only led to a confirmation of
the action of the committee. Soon thereafter about fifty with-
drew from the Church. The women, to the number of thirty-
seven, imitating their sisters in Baltimore, addressed a letter to
the pastor, setting forth their reasons, and withdrew in a body.
Among the laymen expelled were the Chairman, Christopher
Winfree, and the Secretary, John Victor, of the meeting referred
to as "inflammatory." Revs. William J. Holcombe and John
Percival were the expelled local preachers. Subsequently others
withdrew, until the number associated under an instrument pre-
pared was sixty-two. A subscription of $2000 was at once
secured to build a house of worship, if the Convention should
determine to organize an independent Church. The Christian
denominations of the city opened their houses, and the Reformers
had regular Sabbath service, with their local preachers officiating,
as well as social means of grace. In this, as in almost every
other instance, the Reformers constituted the cream of the Metho-

EXPULSIONS: BEFORM ORGANIZATIONS 203

dist Church, an allegation not disputed even by their own histo-
rians. The expulsions in Northumberland County did not take
place until after the Reformers' Convention of November, 1828,
but considered in this connection by association. Shortly after the
Convention Eev. Benedict Burgess, a worthy and acceptable local
minister of many years' standing, who had attended it, with
Thomas Berry, John Lansdale, and others, were catechised by
the preacher in charge, Eev. T. C. Thornton, and, after public
service, the people were detained, and he announced that the
" following names are to be considered as having withdrawn from
the Methodist Episcopal Church " ; and then read out eight or ten
names. Whereupon, subsequently, twenty-one united under the
Conventional Articles.

In Tennessee the Presiding Elder, Gwynn, who had expelled
Beformers, and whose cases on appeal were favorably acted on
by the Annual Conference, after the General Conference of 1828,
in August, notified the Methodists that the Conference had deter-
mined to extirpate Reform, and if, after the ensuing quarterly
conference, Reformers in his district did not withdraw from the
Union Society, surrender their support of the Mutual Rights, and
submit implicitly to church authority, they would no longer be
considered members. Under this menace, fourteen members
signed a paper requesting the preacher in charge to give them
letters of dismissal. The request was denied, whereupon, August
30, about sixty members united and formed a union with the
"Reformed Methodist Society," which had been previously or-
ganized in New York, as found, and of which this was a local
Tennessee branch. The union was formed at Union Camp-ground,
near Unionville, Bedford County, and delegates were appointed
to the ensuing Baltimore Convention. The Birch Grove brethren
who sign the article giving these facts in the Mutual Rights for
October 6, 1828, are William P. Smith, Richard Warner, and
W- W. Elliott. In this case, as in others recited, the writer de-
plores the fact that other names are not now found among accessi-
ble records as worthy of embalmment in the good and heroic cause.

The first number of the Mutual Rights and Christian Intelli-
gencer was issued as the successor to the Mutual Rights, September
6, 1828, so that there was an intermission of but two months in
the publications. It was a bi-monthly folio sheet of eight pages,
under the editorship of Rev. Dennis B. Dorsey, at No. 19 South
Calvert Street, price one dollar. It preserved the reputation of
its predecessors in Reform for high literary character and me-

204 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFOBM

chanical finish. All the prominent writers reappear under their
old incognitos, and its early numbers are filled with discussions
and propositions as to the Convention and its probable outcome.
There are also numerous communications giving information of
expulsions elsewhere than already named, in the North as well,
manifesting the purpose of the Episcopal authorities to " expel
Reform out of the Church." There are notices of camp-meet-
ings, held under the auspices of the Reformers, which were very
successful in conversions, one at Hibernia woods, adjoining the
homestead of Hon. P. B. Hopper in Queen Anne's County, Md.,
and of which he sent a description to Dr. Bangs, editor of the
Christian Advocate, with a request to publish, which, of course,
was not done. There were sixty white conversions and additions,
a number of others having left the ground before the invitation
was given. The notice to the Advocate was sent in grim humor
and solemn travesty of the accusation against Reformers so freely
bandied that they were " backsliders " and " evil spirits " whom
God had forsaken to their erring ways. Rev. Eli Henkle held
what he called a "Local Preachers' Camp," in Baltimore County,
Md., which was very successful. He and his brothers, Saul and
Moses M., were gifted and active preachers in Reform in these
days. The editor of the Star of Bethlehem, published at Taun-
ton, Mass., in the interest of the "Reformed Methodists," noticed
fully in first volume, made inquiry through it as to the plans
and objects of the Baltimore Convention. It may be observed in
passing that a considerable numerical accession was made to the
Methodist Protestant Church from 1830 to 1832 from these breth-
ren, a whole conference, known as the Rochester, in western New
York, uniting their fortunes with the new organization, though,
as is the universal result of all attempted Unions, not a few were
recalcitrant and sloughed off into other churches.

It would require a volume if the local history of all the Union
Societies and the expulsions and withdrawals were recorded in
this work, extending as they did from Burlington, Vt., to New
Orleans, La., and west to the fringe of settled territory. Salient
instances, deemed at the time worthy of special mention, have
been rehearsed for the purpose of pointing the fact that in every
instance expulsion preceded withdrawal in refutation of the
unhistorical averment that the Methodist Protestant Church was
a "secession." One instance, that of Georgetown, D. C, is re-
served by reason of its striking character and illustrative force,
occurring after the November Convention, to which a future
new chapter shall be devoted.

CHAPTER XII

Vindicatory comments on M'Tyeire's reflections upon Bishops George and Rob-
erts— Second Convention of Reformers, November 12-22, 1828 ; roster of mem-
bers in full, but fifteen absentees out of one hundred and ten; Hon. P. B.
Hopper elected President, but declines ; Rev. Nicholas Snethen then chosen —
Seventeen Articles of Association agreed to ; full text with comments, the
fifteenth and seventeenth specially noted as bearing upon Slavery and the
Local preachers ; organizing agents appointed to travel in the two years inter-
vening up to November, 1830, when it was resolved to hold a third General
Convention to adopt a Constitution and Discipline for the new Church ; a com-
mittee appointed to prepare : Williams, Jennings, McCaine, Harrod, and Davis
— Proposal to have a General President rejected; action since on the subject.

In the new Mutual Rights for September 20, 1828, appears the
notice, "The Rev. Enoch George, one of the Bishops of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, died on the morning of the 23d
ultimo, at Staunton, Va., after a most distressing and painful
illness of about twelve days." Bishop M'Tyeire, in his " History
of Methodism," p. 573, says of the contentions of 1820-28,
"Bishop George in judicial weakness, and Bishop Roberts by
amiable irresolution, in the primary movement let the ship drive."
It is M'Kendree and Soule who are complimented by him for the
"resolute means they used to save the constitution." It was his
point of view, but it does grave injustice to George and Roberts.
The evidence is abundant that both these men, while loyal to
their high office, made earnest endeavor to hold an even balance
in the controversy, and the only judicial weakness and amiable
irresolution they exhibited was in their unsuccessful purpose to
hold in check the overbearing and arrogant attitude of their senior
colleagues. Their official rulings, whenever the Reformers came
under them, were generally honest and just, the latter contending
that the Discipline did not warrant the trial of members by any
court of appeal composed of the same persons who had given
verdict against them in the primary instance, — a principle which
was constantly violated in the trials and expulsions of Reformers,
as has been seen; and he assigned Lambdin to the Pittsburgh
church, with the pledge from him that he would not take a partisan
position between the Reformers and anti-reformers, a pledge he
broke so soon as he was in charge. Well had it been for the

205

206 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

subsequent peace and organic unity of American Methodism if
the counsels and moderation of such bishops had prevailed, and
it is that their memories may be rescued from the odium thus
cast upon them that this space is surrendered to them.

The advertised call for the Convention of November, 1828, is
in proof how circumspectly and slowly the Keformers acted in
the grave emergency, and how little ground there is for the slur
upon their memories that they were ambitious and anxious to
make opportunity for secession and the organization of an inde-
pendent Church, than which nothing can be farther from the
truth. The call says : " The committee are therefore of opinion
that it is proper and necessary that a general convention should
be assembled to deliberate upon the course which is now to be
pursued by the friends of reform, . . whether the contemplated
convention shall determine to organize for an independent exist-
ence, to continue their struggle against these lofty pretensions,
or peaceably to surrender their rights and give up all for lost ;
. . . the committee wish it understood, however, that they in no
case advise a separation from the Church, until the sentiments of
the reformers generally can be known, in the contemplated con-
vention."

This, the second Convention of Methodist Keformers, was held
at St. John's church, Liberty Street, Baltimore, Md., November
12 to 22 inclusive, 1828. * It was opened with religious ser-
vices and a sermon by Kev. Nicholas Snethen, after which Kev.
Dr. Jennings was elected Chairman pro tern., and W S. Stockton
and Everard Hall, Esq., Secretaries. The credentials of mem-
bers having been examined, the following were found to have
been elected : —

Vermont
Rev. Justis Byington

New York
Eev. Daniel Bromley Mr. Josiah Wilcox

1 As to the sources of information anent this Convention it may be observed
that the original draft of the proceedings, consisting of forty-four cap pages with
paper cover, is now before the writer held in trust by the Book Concern of Balti-
more, and attested by Nicholas Snethen and the secretaries. By order of the
General Conference of 1854, Rev. W. H. Wills was employed to make a transcript
of the proceedings, as well as of the Convention of 1830 and the General Confer-
ences down to 1854 inclusive, which was faithfully performed, and this volume is
also before the writer, held in trust in the same manner. The Mutual Rights
also contains a full copy of the proceedings. The Articles of Association were
ordered published by the Convention with a roster of the members, and a copy is
before the writer.

REFORM CONVENTION OF NOVEMBER, 1828 207

Pennsylvania

Rev. Dr. Thomas Dunn
Mr. John Mecasky
Mr. William S. Stockton
Rev. Isaac James 1
Mr. L. Tooker1

Maryland

Rev. Dr. Samuel K. Jennings

Rev. Alexander McCaine

Rev. John S. Reese

Rev. James R. Williams

Mr. John J. Harrod

Mr. John Chappell

Mr. Ephraim Smith

Mr. John Kennard

Mr. Wesley Starr

Mr. Henry Willis

Mr. Samuel C. Owings

Mr. Henry Yeater

Mr. Richard Ridgley

Mr. John Rose

William Copper, Esq.

Rev. Daniel Chambers

Mr. Samuel Willis

Rev. Nicholas Snethen

Rev. Daniel Zollickoffer

Mr. Elias Crutchley

Mr. Joshua Smith

Mr. Edmund Rockhold 1

Rev. Charles Avery
Rev. Joseph Smallman
Mr. Charles Widney
Rev. Jeremiah Browning

Mr. Samuel Geyer l
Mr. Henry C. Dunbar
Mr. Hugh M'Mechen
Mr. Beale C. Stinchcomb
Rev. Benj. Richardson
Rev. Isaac Webster
Mr. Joseph Parker
Mr. Amon Richards l
Mr. William Bradford
Mr. Resa Norris
Capt. John Constable1
Mr. John Turner
Rev. S. Linthicum
Thomas C. Keaton1
Mr. Peregrine Mercer
Mr. John Greenfield
Rev. Eli Henkle
Hon. Philemon B. Hopper
Rev. Thomas Reed
Rev. William T. Ringgold
Thomas C. Browne, Esq.
Dr. Thomas W- Hopper

Delaware
Mr. A. S. Naudain

District of Columbia

Mr. Gideon Davis
Mr. John Eliason
Mr. William King
Mr. Joel Brown
Mr. Wm. C. Lipscomb

Rev. Dr. John French
Mr. Tildsley Graham
Rev. John M. Willis

Virginia

Mr. James C. Dunn
Col. William Doughty
Mr. Richard Holdsworth
Mr. Thomas Jacobs
Rev. William Lamphier1

Rev. John Percival

Mr. John Victor

Rev. Dr. John B. Tilden

1 These were not present.

208

HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

Virginia {continued)

Mr. James Taylor Mr. John S. Denson 1

Rev. Thomas Blunt Mr. George W- F. Dashield

Everard Hall, Esq. Rev. Ed. Drumgoole, Jr.

Mr. John J. Burroughs Rev. Thomas Moore

Rev. William H. Coman Rev. Benedict Burgess

Dr. Robert Musgrave x Mr. William W. Ball
Rev. Dr. C. Finney

North Carolina

Rev. Dr. Josiah R. Horn
Rev. W- W. Hill
Speir Whitaker, Esq.

Rev. James Towler
Rev. William Young
Mr. Ezekiel Hall

Ohio

Rev. Dr. Wm. B. Elgin
Rev. Thomas Potts 1

Tennessee

Alabama

Rev. Armstrong J. Blackburn
Rev. Pay ton Bibb l

Dr. John F. Bellamy
Rev. Joseph B. Hinton *
Rev. Israel B. Hutchins

Rev. William H. Collins
Rev. William B. Evans
Rev. Jacob Myers

Col. Richard Warner 1

Dr. Meek1

Names of Delegates from the Methodist Society op New York
Rev. Dr. James Covell Rev. A. G. Brewer

Rev. Thomas Davis
Rev. Samuel Budd

From New Jersey

Rev. Daniel Treland
Rev. Taber Chadwick *

Rev. A. Jump and Rev. T. Melvin in attendance from Caroline County, Md.

Thus it will be seen that out of 110 elected, there were but 15
absentees, which, considering both the expense and the difficulty
of travel in that day, is an extraordinary exhibit. It will also
be seen that, though over one-third were from Maryland, the
number was not out of proportion to the Union Societies and the
general influence Reform exerted in this State. It will also be
seen that a number of lawyers, designated at that time by the
affix of Esq., were members, while the laymen as a class were of
the best in the membership of the old Church, and the ministers,
though largely local, were conspicuous for ability and influence

1 These were not present.

PREAMBLE AND ASSOCIATED ABTICLES 209

in their respective neighborhoods. Two sessions were held, from
nine until one, and from three until five, and toward the close
night sessions also, though earlier, preaching and prayer service
was held at night, and a day of fasting and prayer appointed for
the second Thursday of the Convention. Thus these godly men
strove to keep in Divine touch while discharging their weighty
responsibility. At the afternoon session of November 13, an
election of President by' ballot was ordered, and on counting
the votes Hon. P. B. Hopper of Maryland was found to have a
plurality. " He arose and expressed his gratitude for the honor
intended him, but begged leave, for various reasons, to decline;
his resignation was accepted." On a second trial Rev. Nicholas
Snethen was duly elected. Thus it will be seen that, as in the
first, so in the second Convention, a layman was honored, prece-
dents which were many years later revived and followed. The
sessions for about one-half of the time were held with closed
doors, the fear of obtrusion deterring what was a clear sentiment
of the body, which finally obtained on motion of J. J. Harrod.

A report on the action of the General Conference of 1828 was
submitted and approved from Gideon Davis, an able document,
to be found in full in the Mutual Bights of December 5. The
committee to submit plans for Church organization reported, and
manuscripts were submitted from Gideon Davis, James P. Wil-
liams, S. K. Jennings, and Alexander McCaine, which were read;
and finally the Convention resolved itself into a committee of the
whole on all the papers offered. As the outcome of their delib-
erations, seventeen Articles of Association were agreed to, and
formally adopted, with a Preamble, which is here given in full.
It was from the facile pen of Dr. Jennings.

Whereas, the friends of a fair and equal representation in the
Government of the Methodist Episcopal Church, when they have
insisted on the necessity of a modification in the polity of the
Church, which should recognize this fundamental principle, the
only safeguard to the liberties of the people; and when they have
submitted respectful petitions and memorials to the General Con-
ference, praying for the admission of the principle, have been
met in a manner which has encouraged and prepared the friends
of absolute power, to request and urge them to withdraw from
the fellowship of the Church, and to threaten them with excom-
munication, if they should refuse to comply; — And whereas,
many of our highly esteemed and useful members in the Church,

VOL. II — P

210 HISTOBY OF METHODIST REFORM

by an unjustifiable violence, have been excluded from the fellow-
ship of their brethren, and have been thereby compelled for the
time being, to form themselves into religious fraternities, for
purposes of Christian fellowship; — And whereas, all the Metho-
dists of the United States, and perhaps of the world, have been
united together in their visible fellowship, under the general rules
of Mr. Wesley, which express the only condition and legitimate
test of membership; — And whereas, in violation of good faith
and brotherly love, by an exercise of power, not authorized by
the word of God, other tests have been set up for the support of
that violence, by which many valuable brethren have been unlaw-
fully excluded, as aforesaid; — And whereas, these measures have
been so conducted, that we are justified in believing it to have
been the intention of the General Conference and the anti-
Reformers under their influence, to punish all the avowed friends
of representation, and intimidate any who may feel inclined
to favor that principle; — And whereas, the late decisions of the
Baltimore and Ohio Annual Conferences, as also the ultimate
proceedings and report of the General Conference, in relation to
this subject, have placed every friend of representation in the
Methodist Episcopal Church, in such a situation that their
opponents have it completely in their power to compel them to
renounce their principles, or be excluded from the fellowship of
their brethren ; — And whereas, Ministers favorable to the prin-
ciples of representation, in sundry places, are no longer admitted
to ordination, or to occupy the pulpits in the Methodist Episcopal
Church, to the great grievance of many ; — And whereas, the
opposers of representation appear to show no concern for the
spiritual welfare of those whom they have excluded as aforesaid,
or of those who on account of such exclusions, have considered
themselves called on to withdraw out of the reach of their violent
measures, but hold them up to public view, as evil-minded per-
sons, and prophesy evil things concerning them, notwithstanding
the fact, that those who have had the best means of knowing
the injured brethren, have unabated confidence in their moral
and religious integrity, and in common with all the admirers of
steady adherence to principle, do actually applaud their firmness,
in holding fast the principle of representation, although by so
doing they have been subjected to such heavy pains and penalties ;
— And whereas, the report of the General Conference, above
referred to, not only has sanctioned their unjust proceedings,
but in effect asserted a divine right to continue to legislate and

"ASSOCIATED METHODIST CHURCHES " 211

administer the government of the Church in this oppressive
manner : — Therefore, we, the delegates of the friends of a rep-
resentative form op government in the Methodist Episcopal
Church, elected and appointed by them to meet in Convention in
the city of Baltimore, in November, 1828, with a due regard to
the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, as recog-
nized by the Constitution of the United States, and the several
States in the Union, in common with other Protestant churches,
do in behalf of ourselves, our constituents and our posterity, in
the fear of God, solemnly protest against the right of the General
Conference to assume such power, or to institute or sustain any
such violent proceedings to which it necessarily leads ; and we
do hereby acknowledge and sustain the right of those brethren
who have been excluded, and of those who have on their account
withdrawn as aforesaid, to unite and form themselves into com-
munities; and we do this the more willingly, because in so doing,
they will now of necessity meet the demand which has been so
often made by their opponents, to exhibit a plan explanatory of
the changes which they desire, and what they intended to avoid
till driven to it by necessity, to demonstrate by its practical
operations, the expedience of a representative Methodist
Church Government, and do therefore adopt the following Ar-
ticles of Association for the government of such Societies as
shall agree thereto, under the appellation of " Associated Meth-
odist Churches."

The seventeen Articles of Association are thus summarized by
Bassett's " History : " —

Article 1st. Adopts the Articles of Religion, General Rules,
Means of Grace, Moral Discipline, and Rites and Ceremonies in
the main of the Methodist Episcopal Church.

Article 2d. Provides that each church shall have sole power to
admit serious persons into full membership, and regulate its
temporal concerns.

Article 3d. Declares the right of property as vested in the
respective societies, who are to elect trustees.

Article kth. Provides for the fair trial of accused persons, and
the right of appeal.

Article 5th. Provides for constituting a Quarterly Conference
in every circuit and station, and defines its prerogatives and
duties.

Article 6th. Provides for the organization of one or more Annual

212 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

Conferences in each state, composed of an equal number of min-
isters and lay-delegates.

xlrticle 1th. Provides that each Annual Conference elect its
President and Secretary.

Article 8th. Provides that each Annual Conference adopt its
own mode of stationing the preachers.

Article 9th. Defines the duties and rights of the President.

Article 10th. Further defines the powers of the Annual Con-
ferences.

Article 11th. Contains regulations for its itinerancy and its
ordinations.

Article 12th. Annual Conferences to fix times and places for
their sittings.

Article 13th. Travelling preachers subject to the appointments
of Conference, and entitled to the same allowance as provided in
the Methodist Episcopal Discipline.

Article l&th. Defines the duties of preachers in charge.

Article 15th. Requires that " Nothing contained in these Arti-
cles is to be so construed as to interfere with the right of property
belonging to any member, as recognized by the laws of the state
within the limits of which the members may reside."

Article 16th. Provides for holding a General Convention in
Baltimore on the first Tuesday in November, 1830, composed of
ministers and lay-representatives elected by the Annual Con-
ferences.

Article 17th. Accords certain rights and privileges to super-
numerary and superannuated preachers as to service and com-
pensation.

The fifteenth article was inserted on motion of Speir Whitaker,
Esq., of North Carolina, after amendment. There was no con-
cealment of its purpose : the protection of slave property in the
Southern states. The motives of the author need not be im-
pugned. By him it was intended as a peace measure so far as
the infant Church was concerned. In all the states of the South
civil law had placed the question of manumission under restric-
tions, which no ecclesiastical manifesto could change in the least
degree, hence their introduction was seen to be a strife-enkin-
dling motion whenever obtruded upon its legislative assemblies.
Methodism was, so to speak, a Southern religion. In the mother
Church the vast preponderance of its membership was in the
South, and of the entire Reform Convention all but eighteen
hailed from slave territory. Viewed from the writer's distance'

FIFTEENTH ARTICLE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS 213

of time it was, however, a futile measure. So far as it might be
utilized as a definition of property rights between the citizens of
the several states, it was a nullity, a harmless declaration. It
was reenacted in a modified form in 1830 as part of Article 7th.
" But neither the General Conference nor any Annual Conference
shall assume power to interfere with the constitutional powers
of the civil governments, or with the operation of the civil laws ;
yet nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to authorize
or sanction anything inconsistent with the morality of the Holy
Scriptures." (See Constitution of the Methodist Protestant
Church, 1830.) The qualification was an insistence of the anti-
slavery element in the Convention of 1830, and was accepted by the
Southern element, each side being satisfied with the implication
of personal judgment as to the morality of slavery or any other
question. In this form it has remained in the Constitution of
the Church to this day, the Union Convention of 1877 allowing
it to stand, though not without dissent from some of the repre-
sentatives who remembered the object of its original introduction.
The sober view obtained, however, that to strike out then would
revive a controversy which had been settled by the arbitrament
of the Civil War, and as an unnecessary reflection upon its
original supporters. It was subsequently successfully used as a
safeguard against politico-moral legislation by the Annual and
General Conferences. It was a futile measure, moreover, as it
did not accomplish the object of its enactment in the almost con-
tinuous agitation of the slavery question, and tentative efforts to
repress the institution by ecclesiastical action, ultimating in the
"suspension of official relations" of all the Conferences in the
free states with those in the slave after the General Conference
of 1858. Slavery ceased to be profitable in the Northern states
soon after 1800, and in proportion as it did so, and the slave-
trade was declared piracy by act of Congress, thus ending the
commercial ventures of New England ships,1 the conscience of
the people became more and more sensitive to domestic slavery
in the South ; and as found in the mother Church, as well as in

1 It is noteworthy that the Convention to form a Constitution in Philadelphia
in 1787 submitted this question to two committees respectively. The first re-
ported that the slave-trade should be " llgalized perpetually." Three of the
committee were from the North and two from the South. The next committee
reported that " the slave trade should not be extended beyond 1800," and of the
eleven, six of the committee were from the South. The period was finally fixed
at 1808, the prolongation being secured by votes of Northern members. See
M'Tyeire's " History of Methodism," p. 386, foot-note.

214 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

the new, it grew to such protesting proportions that everything
as to the embarrassing environment of civil laws, State and Con-
ference boundaries, which were plead by the Southern brethren,
was of no avail ; the question culminated in a political party, as
all moral questions in this country must, to insure successful
legislation, and the issue was finally joined in battle array- It
was a burden upon their consciences, and they applied the pre-
cept, " Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbor, and not suffer
sin upon him." Like the "scarlet letter" A, that burned upon
the bosom of Hawthorne's Hester Prynne, so this letter S burned
upon the bosom of the Southern Conferences, and they felt com-
plicity in it, and it must out. Thus much of review of a vexed
question in its initial act and in anticipation of the after struggle,
which may be more briefly disposed of as a dead issue in the
Church.1

Article 17th originated with Dr. Jennings, and was an expres-
sion of his contention for the local ministry, so near his heart.
Some other proceedings need mention. Agents were appointed
for the several states, as propagandists and organizers, who ren-
dered effective service in the two years up to 1830. A committee
was appointed to "prepare a Constitution and book of Discipline,
and a Hymn-book, to be submitted to the convention to be held
on the first Tuesday in November, 1830, in the city of Baltimore."
The committee named was : James E. Williams, S. K. Jennings,
Alexander McCaine, John J. Harrod, and Gideon Davis. '"The
Methodist Societies ' organized in New York, New Jersey, and
elsewhere " were extended a welcome on adopting the Articles of
Association with consent of the Annual Conference interested.
J. J. Harrod offered the following: "Resolved, that a General
President be and is hereby considered necessary to travel at

1 In this late day, 1898, it will do something to protect the memory of such men
as Speir Whitaker, Alexander McCaine, and others, of the period of 1820-30, as to
their views of American domestic slavery, to cite from a speech of the late Mr.
Gladstone, of England, made in Parliament within this same period, as to slavery
in the abstract. His father was the owner of a large plantation in Demerara,
worked by his own slaves, whom his son " believed was a thoughtful, religious,
and good man, and that his slaves were the happiest and most contented of the
race." The citation is from an article eulogistic of William E. Gladstone in the
N~eiv York Christian Advocate of May 26, 1898, and is as follows : " As regards the
absolute lawfulness of slavery, I acknowledge it simply as imparting the right of
one man to the labor of another, and I rest upon the fact that the Scripture — the
paramount authority for such a point — gives direction for persons standing in
the relation of master to slave, for their conduct in that relation; whereas, were
the matter absolutely and necessarily sinful, it would not regulate the matter."

''■GENERAL PRESIDENT" PROPOSAL 215

large through tie Conferences, and that he be vested with power
to transfer any preacher or minister from one to any other Con-
ference when he considers the interests of religion will be pro-
moted by the transfer, provided the minister or preacher consents
to the same." It was lost. The Convention was unprepared for
it, and the Church has never yet felt prepared for it, though there
has been a wide difference of opinion as to its expediency. Of
one thing there can be hardly a doubt: such an arrangement,
under proper limitations as to magisterial powers, would have
been effective as promoting connectional solidity and uniformity
of administration; but the extreme of supervision, the wheels
within wheels of the mother Church, so often crushing remorse-
lessly the personal rights of ministers and the autonomy of
churches, made even the shadow a portent of evil to these en-
franchised brethren. The most that has been secured was by
effort of the writer in the Union Convention of 1877, which makes
the President of the General Conference its connectional head
until his successor is elected, with purely ministerial powers. It
supplied a serious connectional deficiency. The Mutual Bights
and Christian Intelligencer was indorsed as the organ of Reformers,
and patronage solicited. Nicholas Snethen was requested to
address the Convention before adjournment, and he complied.
After continued sessions through eleven days, " the Convention
adjourned, sine die."

CHAPTER XIII

An Independent Methodist Church ; who is responsible ? — Unparalleled conduct of
Reform ministers consenting to part with power ; these leaders named in part
— The Property question fully analyzed and considered in every view of it ;
property is empire; the philosophy of it, etc. — The Georgetown, D. C, case of
Reformers as a type of others considered in detail ; original facts — The propa-
gating Agents and their work everywhere ; Reform crippled for want of preach-
ers; inchoate societies die out — Reform camp-meetings — Bond resumes open
opposition to Reform in Baltimore ; the Itinerant, with an analysis of it
fairly put for its three years' existence — Two schools of Reformers: the Mc-
Caine- Williams party and the Snethen-Stockton party, and what they wished.

An Independent organization of Methodists — with whom does
the responsibility lodge? Both parties were governed, it must
be conceded, by conscientious convictions of necessity in either
situation. On the part of the Eeformers nothing can be more evi-
dent. Its leadership expelled, their friends and adherents could
not do otherwise than withdraw and stand by them. Wedded
to every feature of Methodism except its government of Paternal-
ism and exclusive rule of the ministerial class, legislative, judi-
cial, and executive, they must continue to be Methodists, so that
provisional organization was a necessity of the situation, retain-
ing all of Methodism save the exceptionable features of its polity.
It was an excised branch of the mother tree. The entailed
Paternalism of Wesley's Deed of Declaration, and the same
principle foisted upon the American societies, must bear the
responsibility of this the second division among them. "The
power party," so-called, that is, the ministry, exercised authority
as it was " received from our fathers " ; their rights were vested.
That they were self -created and self-imposed was a question into
which few were disposed to look closely. Voluntary surrender
of any part of this authoritative heritage was denied by the whole
history of human nature thus invested. Surrender under duress
simply meant stern resistance to demand. "The institutions of
the Church as we received them from our fathers " made a strong
government. The strength gave its efficiency. The efficiency
must not be sacrificed to abstract right or demonstrated expedi-

216

A NEW METHODISM OBGANIZED 217

ency. It had created an ideal of its own ; it must not be marred,
as Bishop M'Tyeire puts it, by " constitution-mongers." As one
of the class, Eev. John A. Collins, said in a subsequent General
Conference, the innovations proposed would " run the ploughshare
of destruction through our entire system." It was an honest
opinion, shared, not by his ministerial brethren only, but by a
large number of the membership schooled in such views by their
much loved pastors. They viewed therefore with alarm the
assertion of a submerged laity, who pressed Scripture and reason
and Protestant ecclesiasticism into the contention for Christian
rights in opposition to priestly rule. Scripture, reason, and the
example of other denominations made such headway in the seven
years from 1821 to 1828, in revolutionizing sentiment in the mem-
bership, winning here and there one of " the divinely authorized
expounders " and maintainers of " moral discipline among those
over whom the Holy Ghost has made them overseers " to liberal
views, it was evident that, unless arrested, seven years more
would reverse the pyramid, now upon its apex, to its natural
position of standing upon its base. The Eeformers advanced,
keeping within the hedge of disciplinary law in their overt acts.
It must be arrested, and as they would not, warned by the exam-
ple of O'Kelly and company, and the "Reformed Methodists " of
the Stillwell school, of 1820-25, secede, the one conceded right
of all dissentients, except the peaceful ones, to pray, pay, and
obey within the Church, nothing remained: "Reform must be
expelled out of it." In their view of it, it was a necessity.
Every organized form of society, civil or ecclesiastical, has the
reserved right of self-preservation. The Methodist Episcopal
Church of that day exercised it, and it need not be criticised.
Self-preservation, however, by excision must be according to law.
Here the expelled Reformers made their exception, and impartial
history will yet sustain them. Recall all the instances and the
testimony, and the verdict must be : they were thrust out !

Two vital considerations might as well be disposed of in
this argumentative connection. The unparalleled fact that
ministers engaged in this struggle for lay-representation in
the Church were willing not only to surrender power for
its accomplishment, but were bold to demand that their peers
should do likewise. The contentions for the right of appeal
and for an elective eldership were within the ministerial
class. It has been discovered how nearly unanimous they
were at different periods in the demand for either, until over-

218 niSTOBY OF METHODIST REFORM

borne by episcopal power. It was the awakening these dis-
cussions produced as to rights at all existing in the organized
American Methodist Church, not inherent in the episcopacy,
that led thoughtful men to inquire into the origin of author-
ity, and the lay-movement was inaugurated in public form
by W S. Stockton. That any should have been found in the
ministry accessory to the views presented is the exception of
history. That quite a large number were won over is what might
have been expected of intelligent and liberty-loving Americans,
though so few finally found themselves either so situated in tem-
porals, or heroically firm, as to withstand that power over the
will which comes of extraneous control of one's sustenance in
the crucial hour. That the hundreds of the former should have
dwindled into the few of the latter only makes the historian's
duty the more imperative that pedestals shall be erected on which
they shall be elevated for the admiration of all lovers of fidelity.
Nicholas Snethen, Asa Shinn, Alexander McCaine, Dennis B.
Dorsey, William C. Pool, Eli Henkle, Frederick Stier, Thomas F.
Norris, George Brown, Truman Bishop, Adjet M'Guire, Joseph
Snelling, W. W. Hill, James Hunter, Samuel L. Bawleigh, Avra
Melvin, Cornelius Springer, Justis Byington, William W. Wal-
lace, Thomas Dunn, Zachariah Bagan, Elisha Lott, of the itiner-
ants and ex-itinerants must be accorded places. Historic justice
shall yet be done them. Snethen in his sententious wisdom
averred: "Those who have nobly contended for liberty, though
not always successful, have always been the favorites of fame."
The list of expelled and withdrawn local ministers and preachers
is a long one, the larger number in Maryland, but found also in
various sections, and to them over-commendation cannot be
awarded.

After the Convention of 1828, the Union Societies were organ-
ized into "Associated Methodist Churches," and the Agents,
travelling everywhere, collected the dispersed Reformers, and
nuclei of churches were formed in many places. Their urgent
primary want was preaching and the ordinances. Not a few of
them, in response to the call for such service, yielded, often
abandoning promising and lucrative professional and other occu-
pations, as doctors, lawyers, tradesmen, and farmers. In the
provisional Conferences organized prior to 1830, the ministerial
locality were enrolled as clerical members. They displayed great
activity, and often developed into most acceptable preachers and
pastors. Like early English and American Methodism, the new

BECUSANT AND STEEL-TBUE BEFOBMEBS 219

Church was fostered and kept alive by consecrated lay-preachers
and a devoted locality. Their names shall receive honorable
mention in proper connections, and thus rescue their memories
from the swift oblivion coming to many facts and persons of this
early reformation. Even the records are perishing. Speaking
of the volumes of the Wesleyan Repository, Snethen said in 1835 :
" These volumes have now become scarce, even where they were
circulated. It is doubtful whether by the time an impartial his-
tory can be written a whole set can be found." In this again he
exhibited his phenomenal knowledge of men and things. Per-
haps not half a dozen sets exist to-day.

The other consideration is the property question according to
its tenure in the Methodist Episcopal Church. More than any-
thing else, perhaps, it deterred the Reformers from independent
organization, so long as it was possible to remain under the shelter
of the old roof-tree. The subject was discussed in the first
volume. It was emphasized by the Eeformers, and was one of
the " misrepresentations " and " slanders " with which they were
charged. It goes for the saying, that it is the very sheet-anchor
of arbitrary and irresponsible government. Borne discovered
the secret hundreds of years ago. All property rights are vested
in the clergy of that Church. Its only parallel in Protestantism
is found in the Methodist Episcopal Church. Its paternity in
Methodism is due to John Wesley.1 It developed in him and his
American successors in this regard the mental hallucination of
denying the fact. Snethen in contrast adduces the case of the
Apostles when the primitive Church had " all things in common, "
who refused to be the custodians, but insisted that seven of the
brethren of honest report should have the possession and the right
of distribution. He wrote of it : " We have said that Mr. Wesley
was rich in Chur.ch property; and that he knew and felt he was
so. We say the same of our Superintendents; they, too, know
and feel that they have a hold on the public property, in virtue
of the absolute prerogatives of their office, sufficiently firm to

1 It is remarkable that Wesley, in sober commentation on the appointment of
the deacons by the Apostles, Acts vi. : 3, " Whom we will set over this business,"
says, in contradiction of his own policy: "It would have been happy for the
Church, had its ordinary ministers in every age taken the same care to act in con-
cert with the people committed to their charge, which the apostles themselves,
extraordinary as their office was, did on this and other occasions." The contra-
diction is somewhat relieved by the fact that he never intended in Europe or
America to organize a Church. His Methodists were mere " societies " within a
Church. See Wesley's " Notes," in loco.

220 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

enable them to dispossess any preacher whenever they may think
proper. It is to no purpose to say that they cannot convert this
property to their own private use. There is no reason to sup-
pose that they would do so, if they had the title in fee. Kings
are not wont to use the property of the crown for their own
private benefit, or, in other words, to impoverish themselves as
kings, in order to enrich themselves as individuals. It is not to
be supposed that the holders of absolute power will be less ambi-
tious than prodigal or covetous monarchs. The glory of super-
intendents is proportionate to the amount of property they have
in their possession. Every house that is built, and every collec-
tion that is made, adds to their consequence, by increasing their
influence. Poor bishops of rich dioceses are not common; and
poor universal bishops are less so. The travelling preachers
also, while their imaginations are dazzled with the idea of their
share in the title of property secured by deed to the General
Conference, feel rich, and look down upon the poverty of local
preachers; their exclusive right to seats in the conferences is,
indeed, so nattering to their vanity, as in most instances to blind
them to the actual state of things. Few of them can be brought
to reflect steadily upon the fact that they are little more than
trustees for the bishops, who, so soon as they are elected and
inducted into office, are no longer responsible to them. The
power or privilege of electing to an absolute office for life is the
most dangerous that can be vested in any body of men. The
importance such electors are prone to attach to themselves is
pleasantly ridiculed in the story of the cardinal and the pope.
The cardinal, when he wanted a favor, reminded his holiness that
he had made him pope, who, wearied at length with this impor-
tunity, replied, 'then let me be pope! ' " In this Snethen had a
sharper nib than usual on his pen; but it was the fact, after all,
more than the trenchant rhetoric, that led those who were too
prejudiced to be candid to denounce it as false, and even blas-
phemous.

It is incredible that for long years it was disputed, though
nothing is heard of it in these days. As late as 1855-56 the
venerable W. S. Stockton felt the necessity of restating the prop-
erty question philosophically and predictively : " The government
of the Methodist Episcopal Church is based on property; much
of it is owned, and all of it controlled, by the itinerant ministry,
whoever may constitute it for the time. Is it any wonder that
those who would be governed by choice, truth, and common con-

SNETHEN AND STOCKTON ON CHURCH PROPERTY 221

sent should object? If a class of men should monopolize all
knowledge as well as property, the empire of the class would
rest both on property and mind. Dominion itself is property.
The sovereignty of the people of the United States is their prop-
erty. Dominion in itself, wherever found, is property. Dominion
is property even without land. But the dominion of which we
are treating is founded on real property in lands, money, and
goods, over which the subjects of the government have no direct
control, nor is it intended that they shall have, otherwise than
in the appropriating of certain proceeds contributed by the people
themselves. The people of the Methodist Episcopal Church will
not be allowed any proprietary rights in pulpit patronage, nor in
the periodical press, nor in colleges, chapels, parsonages, nor
votes in General or Annual Conferences. Their privileges as
contributors to the funds of all kinds will be continued, and the
privileges to debate and vote on propositions of appropriation will
be added to the privileges of giving ; but, mark it well, the people
will not be allowed to have any part in the dominion founded
on property. Not only a proportion or the balance of property
in all the particulars above stated will be retained by the bishops
and elders, but it will all be retained. Nothing can prevent this
but a revolution; that would transfer dominion from property to
mind. Mind would restore the true proprietary rights." He
crystallized the whole argument in this pregnant sentence, "Em-
pire follows property, whether lodged in one, or few, or many."
As a philosophy, his positions are incontrovertibly true; as a
prediction, fulfilled, though forty years have rolled away since
he made this record, except that the irrepressible demand for lay-
participation in the government has been reluctantly conceded in
an emasculated lay-delegation in the Church, North, and accepted
as a necessity of the situation in the Church, South. By all the
courts of law, both in England and America, Boman Catholicity,
Wesleyan Paternity, and Methodist Episcopacy, as to proprietary
rights exclusively in the clergy, walk hand in hand, isolated from
every other form of Christian ecclesiasticism.1

1 Not content with a steel-ribbed church law, as to the holding and entailment
of property, as early as 1824-25, the Methodists of New York, prompted by the
secession of the Stillwell party, made application to the legislature of the state
for an Act of Incorporation to make still more secure their realty holdings, thus
exhibiting a quasi trend for national recognition, such as no other denomination
had ever asked. The application was earnestly opposed by the " Reformed
Methodists" of that day, and they excited such an opposition to the scheme,
as a squinting toward union of Church and State, the politicians raised such a

222 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

It is admitted this question is pertinent: Is it the conten-
tion that connectional religious denomination should have no
security for the inviolability of property beyond the will or whim
of the autonomous congregation? The answer is prompt: It is
not. The contention is that it should not be so vested as to
overawe contention for all other rights of empire as well, and this
is decisively the case with Catholic Rome and Parental Metho-
dism, and is so in its intent. The contention is that those who
create property should hold the proprietary right in it. Where,
then, is the security against alienation? In the equities of the
common law derived from the English Constitution, and by which
American jurisprudence is governed in all cases made and pro-
vided. These equities, in numerous cases decided, are in the
general principle that associational property inheres in its title
in any who retain fealty to its original purpose, and under it
Protestant denominations commonly, and the Methodist Protes-
tant Church specially, have been as secure in their realty as a
true equity could demand. The latter has had recreant " church
stealing" pastors and "revolutionary societies,1 but it is an open
question whether with the security of the common law it has lost
more property than the mother Church, despite its iron-clad
deeds and power of precipitate ejectment. In not a few cases
that deed, because of the empire it gives over all other rights as

prejudice against it that the measure failed. Again, as late as 1840, the M. E.
Church, through its proper officials, made a like attempt in Massachusetts to se-
cure State recognition of its property rights, but it also failed for like reasons.
The significance of such efforts cannot be disregarded, inasmuch as no other
denomination has thought it desirable to subsidize the civil law in its property
behoof by special enactment.

1 The sufficiency of the common law, and the Discipline of the M. P. Church to
secure conferential and connectional rights against revolutionary invasion re-
ceived as late as September, 1897, an illustration under the administration of
President Sheppard of the Pittsburgh Conference, as detailed in his annual report
as follows : " Early in September I was called by Rev. B. F. Saddler, the regular
appointed pastor of the Mt. Zion Circuit, to Burnside. There I found the quar-
terly conference of the circuit and Rev. William Bryenton, an unstationed minis-
ter of the Pittsburgli Conference, in rebellion against the stationing authority of
the conference, refusing to surrender the pulpits and properties of the circuit to
the regular appointed pastor. After a careful hearing of the matter, and upon the
officials of the circuit declaring publicly that they would not obey the author-
ity of the conference, I immediately took the proper legal steps to secure the
properties to the church and to protect Brother Saddler in the exercise of his
duties. The matter was heard before the court of Clearfield County, and a de-
cision was handed down, fully establishing Rev. Saddler in charge of the circuit,
giving him the use of all properties and the right to the pulpits of the circuit, thus
establishing fully the contention of the Discipline, that the conference has power
to station its preachers."

"COMMON LAW" AND EQUITY PROTECTION 223

well, has been evaded, a strong and wealthy laity thus silently
protesting against the usurpation which makes trusteeship a
nominal holding. This leads back to the thought that suggested
this exhaustive disposition of a vital difference between the Re-
formers and their quondam friends. To go out was to go empty-
handed, stripped of all claim to realty they had in full proportion
assisted to acquire. To go out was to seek shelter in the courtesy
of other denominations, or public halls and schoolrooms, and then
slowly, and with an amazing self-sacrifice, build anew; for there
is no recorded instance in which, however equitable the claim,
the mother Church ever allowed it to those it had thrust out.
There were a few cases in which the Reformers swept so nearly
the whole membership and congregation, as at Uniontown, Md.,
under the lead of Rev. Daniel Zollickoffer, that the few old
Church adherents withdrew, and it has remained extinct to this
day. At Hampton, Va., it having been found that a large
majority of the members were among the original subscribers to
the church property, and now pronounced Reformers, they took
possession of it. In many other places conflict was precipitated
by one party or the other seizing the church, and excluding the
other by changing locks and barring doors and windows.1

1 A striking example of a church law that invests the officials and ministers
with the exclusive proprietary right in realty of every kind has recently been
disgracefully exhibited in the division of the denomination known as " The Evan-
gelical Association." Methodist in doctrine and usage, they organized after the
model of the Methodist Episcopal Church in polity. The disastrous division was
directly assigned to a difference among the bishops, separating the preachers and
people into a Bishop Esher-Bowman and a Bishop Dubs party. After much con-
ferential wrangling, litigation was evoked by the Esher-Bowman party to eject
from the churches the Dubs people and preachers, and as they had the same kind
of an iron-clad property law as in the M. E. Church, the Supreme Court of Penn-
sylvania decided that the adhering Esher-Bowman section were the legitimate
official representatives. It happened that in Pennsylvania and Iowa specially,
the Dubs party was in many cases unanimously, and in many others, by large
majority, adherents of this Bishop's side. In both States, however, the Esher-
Bowman section, armed with this legal ouster, proceeded to eject their opponents,
though in many places they had no membership left holding with them. In Iowa,
sixty ministers were Dubsists, and only six Esherites. But the six under Esher
elevated two of their number as presiding elders, and they at once entered legal
proceedings to recover from the sixty all the church property. At a place called
Lisbon, finding that they could not establish a rival church there, they offered to
sell the congregation their own property, de facto, for which they had expended
$4500, its worth being $9000, for $1500. In not a few places these Christian
elders seized the property and closed it up, as they had no adherents in the place.
How much farther these churchmen Shylocks will press their advantage remains
to be seen in the face of a court of public opinion, which must denounce these
unchristian proceedings. The Dubs party have organized a General Conference,

224 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

Shortly after the adjournment of the Convention, at a monthly-
meeting of the St. John's Baltimore association, they adopted the
articles and organized as the " St. John's Associated Methodist
Church."1 On the return of the delegates who represented the
Reformers from Georgetown, D. C, three of the number, William
King, Gideon Davis, and W. C. Lipscomb, were accused by
Samuel M'Kenny and others in the Quarterly Conference, of
" speaking evil of ministers " in their attendance upon the Con-
vention. Rev. Norval Wilson was the preacher in charge and in
full sympathy with the proceedings of the anti-reformers. A
resolution was passed, the Reformers present declining to vote,
requesting the pastor to remove these three from their official
positions. It was agreed to by a strict party vote, and the pastor
announced that they were so removed. This was Friday evening,
November 29. After the adjournment an informal conference of
Reformers took place. A meeting was called for the Tuesday
night following, permission having been granted by Rev. Stephen
G. Balch and the trustees of the Presbyterian church to assemble
in that church. After due consideration it was determined to
withdraw and form an "Associated Methodist Church." A paper,
hurriedly prepared, was signed to this effect by twenty-two males
and fifteen females. On the following Sabbath they had public
service at the Lancasterian schoolhouse in the morning and at
Christ Protestant Episcopal church at night, the use of it being
granted by the rector and vestry, a tide of sympathy having
at once set in for the Reform party. Others joined them until
they numbered fifty, and steps were at once taken to build a
church.

Nowhere perhaps was more bitterness evoked. M'Kenny, a
lawyer and most influential member aiid citizen, took the rdle of

and will carry with them a large section of the membership. Warned by this dis-
aster, they revised their Discipline so as to make it conform nearly to that of the
Methodist Protestant Church in its principles, and so barred out the possibility
of another rupture by a difference among life-tenure bishops, with an empire in
property. The new organization will be known as "The United Evangelical
Church," by a decree of their General Conference, which assembled at Naperville,
111., November, 1894.

1 See " An Act of Incorporation of the Associated Methodist Church of the City
of Baltimore," one of the "Associated Methodist Churches," adopted January 19,
1829. Baltimore. Printed by William Woody, 1829. 24mo. '_'() pp. At a meet-
ing of the male members in St. John's Church, Liberty Street, the following were
named as the first board of trustees : Thomas Mummy, John Chappell, Rev. James
R. Williams, Rev. Thomas McCormick, John J. Harrod, Lewis D. Lewis, George
Evans, Ephraim Smith, and George Northerman.

GEORGETOWN, D. C, CHURCH CASE 225

Dr. Bond in this local division. John Dickson, a brother-in-law
of W. C. Lipscomb, one of the disciplined, and others of good
report and social standing, led in the prosecuting spirit; and no
one may doubt either the sincerity of their piety or their convic-
tions upon the subject. M'Kenny issued a pamphlet of twenty
pages, in which he gave an account of what was done in the
Quarterly Conference and the reasons for it. It was answered by
the disciplined Keformers, King, Lipscomb, and Davis, the liter-
ary work being from the facile pen of the last named, in a pam-
phlet of twenty-nine pages. Others followed on both sides, until
the religious community knew not what to believe, so diametri-
cally opposite were the statements. The excitement in Methodist
circles was intense and the social estrangement complete. Fami-
lies were divided, and the parties passed each other on the street
without recognition. It is not contended that the Eeformers had
grown wings and were angelical in their intercourse, but there
are some sober facts that cannot be denied in this special case.
The flat denials and affirmations of the several parties were such
that, in the interest of a common religion, outside Christians
endeavored to interpose and settle it. This led the Keformers to
propose that the questions of fact should be submitted to arbitra-
tion, they to select two and the anti-reformers two, and the four
a fifth. It was addressed to Samuel M'Kenny; but he declined,
in behalf of his friends, to have the trouble thus composed, and
it makes the averment necessary that he had misstated the facts
and garbled the proceedings. This unhappy state of things con-
tinued for a number of years, until the Christian community,
scandalized by the unseemly dissension, again endeavored to
interpose and secure at least a truce.1 Accordingly, Eev. Dr.
Stephen G. Balch, Presbyterian, and the rector of Christ Protes-
tant Episcopal church selected two each of their most respected
members as a committee of mediation. A carefully prepared
letter was addressed simultaneously to both parties, setting forth
the moral damage inflicted by the continuous strife, and asking
for a cessation and a reconciliation, at least, as to their respective
outward, social intercourse, and denominational recognition. It
was sent June 1, 1832, and, on June 2, the Eeformers promptly

1 The inspiration of this movement was the fact that prior to 1829, the several
Protestant churches of the town had a union prayer-meeting. On the organiza-
tion of the Associated Methodist Church they were invited to participate in the
meeting, whereupon the Methodist Episcopal Church withdrew from the union.
They refused to worship with their quondam brethren. See letter of Gideon
Davis in Methodist Protestant, October 21, 1831.

VOL. II — Q

226 HISTOBT OF METHODIST BEFOBM

assembled and consented to any compromise the mediators might
arrange. M'Kenny and his associates waited until June 21, when
they answered, taking the strange ground that they were the
injured parties, and had the only grievance, which they recited
in detail from their point of view. They declined the mediation,
except on condition that the Reformers, following the Saviour's
advice in Matthew, would confess and repent of the wrong-doing
without reciprocation on their own part. It ended the corre-
spondence, but threw the sympathies of the whole community to
the Reformers ; so that they speedily finished their new Congress
Street church, without debt, grew rapidly in numbers, and took
position as the rival Methodist Church of the town.1 Like scenes
were frequent in not a few other sections, where the sentiment
was so nearly equally divided as in this place.

Immediately after the Convention of November, 1828, the
agents appointed in the several States displayed great activity,
and by their efforts, often rendered at much personal sacrifice,
not only the existent Union Societies were saved from disintegra-
tion, but many small groups of Reformers were organized and
placed under the care of local preachers or some gifted class

1 Any one curious to verify these facts can do so by consulting the archives of
this church, always accessible, in which the whole original correspondence is
preserved as well as a circumstantial record made on its official minutes of all
the early proceedings, and from which the writer gathered his information by
personal inspection. The writer has also some facts from his venerable mother-
in-law, Mrs. Henry Weaver, now in her eighty-fifth year, who recalls the scenes
of 1828 distinctly, as a young girl and member of the Methodist church. The
division not appreciated in its principles by the younger members, she relates how
they would meet in groups after Sabbath service, and weep over the situation so
full of strange Christian inconsistency to them, and menacing their youthful
friendships as well. The late venerable Francis A. Baker, brother to Mrs.
Weaver, also related to the writer that he well remembered going with his
mother to the Methodist Church one Sabbath in the winter of 1828, after the
division. The pastor, Rev. Norval Wilson, arose to conduct the service, but be-
fore he could complete the reading of the first hymn he was overcome with emo-
tion, and sat down. Matthew Greentree, a located minister, was sitting in the
chancel, and went to Wilson, then a young man, and after consoling with him, he
arose and went through the service without public explanation. Mr. Baker asso-
ciated it, however, with the division. The pastor, looking over his congregation,
and finding the places of many of his former official members vacant, no choir
leader, as Lipscomb, who so acted, had withdrawn, and over twenty of his prin-
cipal male members not in their places, he was distressed to tears over the situa-
tion. It is also a part of the record that before the division the contention between
the Reformers and the anti-reformers was so bitter that when Lipscomb, the
leader in the choir gallery, began to sing, the anti-reformers downstairs attempted
to sing his choir down, alleging that they would not sing after a " Radical."
These melancholy facts are rehearsed as illustrating better than arguments the
controversy and the length to which crimination and recrimination was carried.

WORK OF REFORM STATE AGENTS 227

leader. Many of these inchoate societies afterward perished.
They were frequently isolated; it was impossible to supply them
in time with preaching or secure shepherds to watch over them ;
while the whole social power of the old Church was brought to
bear in their extirpation. In the West, George Brown in Pitts-
burgh, Asa Shinn in Cincinnati, Cornelius Springer near Zanes-
ville, W. B. Evans in the vicinage of Harrisville, and Josiah
Foster on the Ohio circuit, did valiant service, and made frequent
incursions to other sections in response to call for organization
of Associated Methodist churches. There was a strong Union
Society at Steubenville, and one in Washington, Pa. ; at both
places churches were organized. Brown's "Itinerant Life" and
the Methodist Correspondent, established in the interest of Re-
form at Cincinnati, November 15, 1830, are fruitful of infor-
mation, and can be profitably consulted by those who wish
particulars of the heroic struggle.

The work of the Agents and the progress of Reform over many
states would require a volume for recital. Brief sketching must
suffice. Dr. John French, one of the ablest and most self-sacri-
ficing of the early ministerial Reformers, did yeoman service for
the cause as one of the Agents for Virginia. In the eastern sec-
tion he organized a number of societies, and, finally concentrat-
ing at Norfolk, built a stately church, and gathered a strong
membership; but involved himself financially to such an extent
in his zeal for the cause, that he never recovered. He merits
embalmment in the amber of sacred remembrance. The Agents,
and other leaders, made a specialty of camp-meetings, often
with great success, and gathering the first fruits of evangelistic
labors. A society was organized at Rodman, western New York,
October 8, 1828, Joseph Whitehead, Chairman, and John B.
Goodenough, Secretary. At Suffolk, Va., Rev. Dr. Finney was
active, and, October 7, a meeting of Reformers elected delegates
to the ensuing Convention. Also at Xenia, 0., a like meeting,
with Robert Dobbin, Chairman, and Saul Henkle, Secretary. At
Alexandria, Va., a society was formed, and Rev. William Lam-
phier and Thomas Jacobs were leaders and delegates to the Con-
vention. In Philadelphia two societies existed, and though no
large numbers withdrew, partially for the reason that the Reform
sentiment, while general among both preachers and people, they
did not coalesce with the Baltimore brethren for various rea-
sons, and were leniently dealt with by the authorities ; but they
sent Dr. Dunn, Dr. James, and Messrs. Mecasky, Stockton, and

228 HISTOBY OF METHODIST BEFOBM

Tooker to the Convention. In New Jersey the "Beformed
Methodists" had organized in anticipation, and were finally
absorbed, sending delegates to the Convention. At Coman's
Well, Va., October 27, the meeting appointed delegates: Richard
Latimore, Chairman, and W H. Coman, Secretary. At Autaga,
Ala., a society was formed, C. T. Traylor, Chairman, and S. M.
Meek, Secretary. A.t Magathy, Md., a society, Charles Waters,
Chairman, B. G. Boon, Secretary. Near Middletown, Hyde
County, N. C, a camp-meeting was held, October 16, 1828, with
congregations of over one thousand, and one hundred and twenty
white conversions. The preachers were Barclif and Norman,
ex-itinerants, and Brooks, Giles, Pucket, Floyd, Miller, and Hill,
local. The revival continued for months after in the county.
Bequest was made of the New York Christian Advocate to publish
the good news. Of course no notice was taken of it. After the
Convention the organizations were more numerous, as it was the
first expression of organic perpetuation of Beform. Churches
were organized in Washington, D. C, a secession from the old
Foundry church, afterward First church on Ninth Street, now
Central, and at the Navy Yard in east Washington. At Chester-
town, Kent County, Md., a strong society was organized. At
Buddie's Mill, Ky., a society was formed. The Greenville,
Ala., society adopted the Conventional Articles, John Cook,
Chairman, Green Vickers, Secretary. At Madison, Ind., the
largest town then in the state, a Beformer writes : " We are wait-
ing for a preacher ; as soon as we can be supplied with a good
one, we are willing to step out of the old Church into the new.
This is the largest town in Indiana; Beform has got a good
foothold here, and it is absolutely necessary for us to have a
good preacher; for we expect the old side will send their best
preachers here in order to defeat us." This was a typical case.
In scores of instances such buds of promise never matured — the
reasons are obvious; with this latent sentiment it is not rash to
say the Church was saturated, but by a strange perversion of
the facts such failures were heralded as retractions of Beform
opinions rather than the absolute inability of the Beformers
to man the work presenting on every side. Not only so, but
wherever tentative organization took place, at once the whole
machinery of a powerful Church was set in motion to crush it.
These are facts. How far it was justified by the principle of
self-preservation depends upon the means that were employed.
In a large number of cases they were certainly against all warrant

SILENCE ADDED TO SUPPRESSION 229

of Christian propriety, and in not a few were shameful violations
of the social compact and of business comity.1

Another aspect of the general subject demands brief treatment.
It is exhibited by a letter of a western Pennsylvanian to the
Mutual Rights of this period, who had attended a two days' meet-
ing of Methodists, "where very little had been heard concerning
reform ; and that he conversed freely with the Methodists on the
subject, and found no opposition to the conventional articles."
He adds, " The fact is that there would be few opposers of reform,
if the subject could be fairly set before the people." The view
is correct and in accord with the facts; but in addition to the
policy of suppression, wherever it was possible to make it effec-
tive, the policy of silence was studiously enjoined that the very
existence of Keform might not be advertised, it being intended
that the action of the General Conference of 1828 should be a
finality to the Eeformation. A notable instance of this policy
of silence was in the announcement of the New York Christian
Advocate, shortly after, that its columns could no longer be used
for the controversy on either side. It was bad policy to advertise
its twenty thousand readers that the " pestilent thing " still lived,
in every number. It was for this reason, probably, that Dr.
Emory's final strictures on McCaine were published in the
Methodist Magazine, read chiefly by the preachers. The outcome
of this action will be presently seen, when return is made to the
Baltimore Reformers and Dr. Bond. A secession took place in
Appling, Ga., February, 1829, of some sixty members, and a
society was formed. Bev. Moses M. Henkle writes from Spring-
field, 0., on church building and the progress of Beform in that
state. Nearly twenty camp-meetings were announced, to be held
by Reformers in different parts of the county, for the summer
and fall of 1829.

The first volume of the Mutual Bights and Christian Intelligencer

1 There were numerous instances of " boycotting " of Reformers in their busi-
ness wherever it could be done to any effect. The writer will confine himself to
a single case as illustrative because it has been verified by living witnesses. At
Carlisle, Pa., a small society of Reformers existed as a part of an adjacent cir-
cuit. One of their number, stanch and unflinching in his adherence, was Samuel
Hill, a baker. His former customers, most of them Methodists, finding that he
could be moved no other way, resolved to move him out of the town by withhold-
ing their former patronage of his bakery. They succeeded in starving him out,
and he removed to Baltimore, where the Reformers were strong enough and ate
bread enough to keep him in business until 1842, when he peacefully departed
this life. His widow survived him many years, and was personally known to the
writer.

230 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

closed with perhaps three thousand subscribers. It had been
ably conducted, the principal contributors being Snethen, Shinn,
"Erasmus," and James R. Williams in a serial, "History of
Reform," afterward enlarged to book form. Much of its space
was occupied with local Reform intelligence, and refutation of
allegations, diligently circulated and multiplied, that Reform was
dying or dead. The new hymn-book, authorized by the late
Convention, was compiled and published by J. J. Harrod, who
sustained to the Reform movement, as Book Agent and publisher,
the same relation that John Dickins did to the Methodist Church
as the father of its Book Concern. It was a small 24mo volume,
but answered the purpose for some years.

A summary of camp-meetings, held under Reform auspices
during the summer and autumn of 1828, will preserve important
historical dates and indicate the zeal of the brethren. The first
was held near Centreville, Md., in Judge Hopper's Hibernia
woods, early in August, 1828, heretofore noticed. The second
was at Coman's Well, Sussex County, Va., October 22-27, seven-
teen white conversions, with large attendance. The Union
Camp, near Unionville, Tenn., September 26, had eighteen
conversions, and an attendance of from two to three thousand on
Sabbath. Henkle's local preachers' camp, in Baltimore County,
Md., October 16, with thirty -five conversions. Near Middleton,
Hyde County, N. C, October 16, large congregations and great
spiritual power, with one hundred and twenty conversions under
Rev. W. W. Hill. This, it will be remembered, was prior to
the provisional organization under the Conventional Articles of
November, 1828.

Returning to Baltimore, challenging always preeminent notice
as the cradle of American Methodism, and the birthplace of
Methodist Reform, the thread of narrative is resumed. Dr.
Bond, it was found, had returned from his pacificatory work at
the General Conference of May, 1828, at Pittsburgh, and at once
entered upon earnest efforts to separate the Reformers from their
leaders, and so throttle, by social disintegration, what he so far
failed to accomplish by "writing it down." With his profession
upon his hands he yet displayed unusual activity; and but for
the stigma attaching to his methods, the old rigime of govern-
mental Methodism is more indebted to him for the partial arrest
of Reform than any man in its history. He took up again the
rdle of intermediary, and, adopting a current phrase of the day,
he boasted that he was "Jack o' both sides." He now had the

DR. BOND AGAINST THE McCAlNITES 231

backing of not a few influential laymen, who, counting the cost
of a crisis now imminent, and by natural disposition inclined
to "let well enough alone," became active in conservative
labors. Adroitly sinking, for the time, the question of lay-
representation on its, merits, Dr. Bond played upon the Church
loyalty and preacher-love of the people by making odious use
of McCaine's "History and Mystery" and used Dr. Emory's
"Defence of Our Fathers," while McCaine was in the South
under physical disability, which prevented the appearance of his
pulverizing rejoinder in the " Defence of the Truth " until early
in 1829. The issues thus raised were effective weapons in Bond's
dexterous hand ; as it is in accord with all that is known of human
nature in acrimonious controversy to be passionately precipitate
and partisan; so that there was little calm examination of these
issues on the line of evidence; nor were they regarded as of
primary importance by the Keformers themselves.

A new opprobrium was invented. The " McCainites " were
hissed as vile traducers and infamous slanderers of the "fathers,"
whose names sat reverently upon the lips of pious Methodists.
McCaine, as these pages have clearly shown, was amply
vindicated; but it seemed most untimely for lay-representation
to reveal the skeleton at this juncture. It affrighted the
average Methodist, who closed the whole question by shutting
his eyes to it. They redoubled their spiritual labors, and
five or six hundred were added to the several city churches;
this was claimed as divine approval of the old system, and the
pretence might have carried conviction with it, but for the
offsetting fact; the city Reformers were also having revivals,
and everywhere, as exhibited, conducting most successful evan-
gelistic work. But when the second volume of the Mutual
Rights and Christian Intelligencer appeared, enlarged and more
vital than ever ; and the second Convention of Keformers, in Bal-
timore, in November, was assured; and all attempts to break the
solidarity, or check the growth, of Reform proved abortive, — dif-
ferent tactics were resorted to by the "Bondmen," so called.
The bimonthly appearance of the Mutual Rights and the closure
of the Christian Advocate to the discussion put anti-reformers
at a serious disadvantage. The exigency was met in Baltimore
by the Itinerant or Wesleyan Methodist Visitor. It was a quarto
of eight pages, bimonthly; and the first number appeared
November 12, 1828. Melville B. Cox is named editor. He
was an itinerant from Virginia, of respectable abilities, and a

232 HISTORY OF METHODIST EEFORM

former advocate of Reform measures.1 The volumes are now
under the eye of the writer,2 and he finds in the Prospectus
confirmation of the policy of Dr. Bond as just described.
Proposals, it seems, for such a periodical were issued before the
late General Conference ; but the conciliatory (?) measures of
that body and the overweening confidence of the episcopal
authorities that Reform had been dealt a finishing stroke, led to
a suspension of the purpose for six months. The editor sounds
the key-note in this charge, " The writers for the Mutual Bights
continue to assail, with unrelenting severity, and to misrepresent,
with studied ingenuity, whatever is done by our Church to pre-
serve us in the unity of the spirit." Such "evil speaking of
ministers " was certainly equal to anything the Eeform literature
ever produced. Dr. Bond appears in the first number in an
elaborate article on "The Convention," that is, the ensuing
Eeform Convention, signed " C " ; and, under this incognito, he
continued to write voluminously, and, as a matter of fact, con-
trolled the editor and the conduct of the paper. The article
named was his last attempt to be conciliatory. One acquainted
with his style has but little difficulty in identifying his writings,
commanding as he did an abundant rhetoric, and a perspicacity
that always made his meaning plain, and a speciousness of argu-
ment that quite satisfied the average reader. A bundle of the
first number was sent to the Convention for distribution, "in
brotherly kindness and politeness," as a writer signing himself
"Justice," says in the next number, who complains lugubriously
that the Convention met this piece of effrontery with four
motions: one that the papers lie on the table; another that no
notice be taken of them; a third that they be burned instantly;
and a fourth, which was the one adopted, that they be left in the
house, subject to the will of any one; quite as polite a disposition
as an open insult could be expected to receive even from Christian
gentlemen. Imagine a bundle of the Mutual Sights sent to the
late General Conference for distribution and recognition! But
then, these brethren commiserated the benighted condition of

1 This he denied, but so did Dr. Bond, to the amazement of all who knew his
antecedents. In later years, he utterly repudiated the accusation as boldly as
Peter denied all knowledge oi the Saviour. It was not, however, it may be chari-
tably assumed, an equivocation, but a mental reservation. They meant that they
were never Reformers like Alexander McCaine, for instance, and this was true,
both as to the extremes to which he went, and the ability he displayed.

2 Kindly loaned the writer by the Methodist Historical Society of Baltimore, to
whom he is also indebted for access to other sources of information.

"THE ITINERANT" AND DB. BOND 233

the "disaffected spirits." Christian Keener, before honorably
named, came to the assistance of Dr. Bond in a long series
of articles styled, "A Defence of Methodism." They were
in good temper and of marked ability, traversing the whole
question and making the most of the " well enough " view pos-
sible. He wrote under his own signature, about the only instance
of the kind in the Itinerant, though the Mutual Rights had been
severely arraigned for its anonymous correspondents. Bunning
parallel with this series Dr. Bond, as "C," reviewed the Report
of the late General Conference on Beform, and entered into a
sarcastic analysis of the Conventional Articles. They furnished
him ground for invidious comparisons and suppositious infer-
ences. The gravamen of his criticism was that the framework
was loose and the details unfinished. No allowance was made
for the merely provisional nature of the Articles. Not a few of
the Beformers were no better satisfied with some of them than
Dr. Bond professed to be. And it may be in place to state that
while the Beformers were a unit as to the principle of Bepre-
sentation, the mode and degree of it was an open question anent
which they differed. In fact, there were two parties of them in
the leadership, what may be called a Williams-McCaine party,
who were for as much reproduction of the Old Church polity as
was not inconsistent with this principle, holding rigid views as to
connectionalism and itinerancy; and a Snethen-Stockton party
holding to a bold departure from the ancient polity with fuller
Annual Conference autonomy, congregational rights, and a flexi-
ble itinerancy. This view will be more fully treated when the
Constitution and Discipline of the Methodist Brotestant Church
are considered. It was also reviewed by Dr. Bond, as well as
Dr. Jennings's strictures, afterward issued, in book form, in his
"Exposition." Dr. Bascom's "Summary of Bights" was also
elaborately reviewed by "Inquirer." In addition, the periodical
was the vehicle of counter blasts and contradictory statements
from correspondents at nearly all points where Beform was
organized.

It was continued for three years, accomplishing a great deal
as a conservator of episcopal authority; but its patrons gradu-
ally tired of the thrashing of old straw. Midway of the first
volume Cox's name disappears as editor; and after this it was
impersonal, Dr. Bond coming into still closer touch with it, and
in the last number he makes a personal explanation as to his rela-
tions to the controversy and an acknowledgment of his authorship

234 HISTORY OF METHODIST BEFOBM

of so much in it. The Itinerant had had a faithful ally in the
Georgia Christian Repository for a year or more. The Itinerant
discharges its Parthian arrow at Eeform in the jubilate : " The
existing state of things did not any longer require a paper
devoted to the defence of our ecclesiastical economy. They con-
sider the war as ended in the total discomfiture of the enemy."
The Chinese used to defeat their enemies by a clamorous beat-
ing of tomtoms, fireworks, and painted dragons. It is the
object of this History, sixty-five years later, to exhibit "the
total discomfiture of the enemy." The writer's apology for
devoting so much precious space to this periodical in a fairly
impartial brief of its contents, is to mark contrast with the scant
notice of Eeform periodicals by the historians of the Old Church.
The last number of the Itinerant bears date October 26, 1831.

CHAPTER XIV

Election of representatives to the Convention of 1830 by the Annual Conferences
as formed ; history of their formation from 1828 to 1830 with rosters of original
members ; interesting facts connected therewith — Evans's ' ' Questions and An-
swers on Church Polity," known as " yellow jackets " — Snethen as a travelling
organizer in his old age — Camp-meetings — A few exceptions to the rule of
withdrawals without certificates — First Auxiliary Superannuated Society, the
Phoebian of St. John's Church, Baltimore — Vitality of Lay-Representation as
a principle shown ; extenuation for the hundreds who lapsed from the cause
under crucial tests of the time — Success of the new Church despite all hinder-
ances proven by the figures — Ordination papers and their validity in separa-
tists— Bascom prepares for the Constitution of the new Church his Summary
of Rights ; its mishap, and the Elementary Principles substituted — Appendix
I, first volume.

Article 16th of the Convention of 1828 requiring that the
representatives to the Convention of 1830 should be elected by-
Annual Conferences, immediate steps were taken to organize such
wherever practicable. Accordingly, on the 19th of December,
1828, the expelled and withdrawn ministers, and the lay -delegates
deputed by the societies of North Carolina, assembled at Whit-
aker's chapel, Halifax County, and organized by electing Eev.
E. B. Whitaker, President pro tern., and Rev. Miles Nash,
Secretary. The only accessible records show that it was com-
posed of eight ministers, seven of whom had been expelled for
their Eeform principles from the mother Church, and one, W. W-
Hill, who, though, tried, made such a convincing argument in his
own defence that the committee acquitted him. He subsequently
withdrew. The seven other ministers were James Hunter,
E. B. Whitaker, "William Bellamy, Henry Bradford, Miles Nash,
William Price, and Abriton Jones. There were also five licensed
preachers in attendance and twelve lay-delegates. All were from
the Eoanoke Union Society except the preachers, the Granville
Society not having had time, owing to the short notice of the
meeting, to elect delegates. W. W. Hill was elected President
and travelling Agent for the state, and at once entered upon
active labors. Such are the meagre details of the first organized
Conference of three circuits.

235

236

HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

The ministers, preachers, and lay-delegates from the Maryland
Union Societies assembled at St. John's church, Baltimore, April
-, 1829, to organize an Annual Conference.1 After provisional
formation, on the second day an election by ballot of a President
resulted unanimously, save one vote, for Rev. Nicholas Snethen;
William H. Bordley, Secretary. The following appear to be
enrolled as members : —

Ministers

Nicholas Snethen
Alexander McCame
Samuel K. Jennings, M.D.
James E. Williams
Dennis B. Dorsey
Thomas McCormick
John S. Reese, M.D.
Luther J. Cox
Daniel E. Reese
Jonathan Forrest
Eli Henkle
William C. Pool
Benjamin Richardson
Isaac Webster
John Davis
William Kesley
J. B. Fergusson
John C. French
Frederick Stier
William W Wallace
Joseph Scull
Kendall Cropper
John Fernon
David Crall
James Hanson
Reuben T. Boyd
William Bawden
Charles Jacobs
Thomas Dunn, M.D.

Lay-Delegates

John Chappell
George Evans
Wesley Starr
John J. Harrod
John Rose
Richard A. Shipley
George Northerman
Robert B. Varden
John H. Kennard
Thomas W. Hopper, M.D.
Hon. P. B. Hopper
William Harper, Jr.
William H. Bordley
James Parrott
Rowland Rodgers
Abalard Stevenson
Christopher 0 wings
Jasper Peddicord
Thomas Mummy
John Eliason
George Collard
James Moore
Daniel Peregoy
Dennis A. Smith
John May

1 See manuscript minutes of Maryland Conference in first volume of its Minutes
in custody of the Baltimore Book Concern. There are three portly volumes of
these Minutes, all of which were printed, save those of the first Conference.
Though so ordered, no copies are extant, and it is evident that the order was not
carried out.

Also "History of the Maryland Annual Conference of the Methodist Protes-
tant Church," by J. T. Murray and T. H. Lewis, Baltimore. W. J. C. Dulany,
agent. M. P. Book Concern. 1882. 12mo. 124 pp. Cloth.

ORGANIZATION OF ANNUAL CONFERENCES 237

The business of the Conference most important as establishing
precedents, was the motion of L. J. Cox to organize auxiliary-
societies for the support of superannuated ministers, etc., through-
out the Conference. The motion of Dr. Jennings was to invest
the President with the appointing power, subject to the revision
of a Committee of Appeals. " On motion, it was unanimously
resolved that we are as much as ever opposed to slavery." This
action appears to have been taken by common consent, even such
proslavery men as McCaine making no objection to offset the
proslavery construction put upon the fifteenth Conventional
Article by the anti-reformers in Maryland. Of those enrolled,
Jonathan Forrest, Nicholas Snethen, and Alexander McCaine had
long and honorable records as ex- itinerants. The Conference
adjourned April 7, to meet March 31, 1830, at the same place.
On the same day this Conference organized, April 22, 1829, a
second Conference assembled in North Carolina, at Sampson's
meeting-house, and Paris says : " At the opening of this session,
several ministers gave their names and were received as members
who had not had opportunity of attending the first session; . . .
a fourth circuit was added to the previous number." Arbitrary
proceedings in the western part of the State led to other enforced
withdrawals. The preacher in charge of Guilford circuit, after
service at Moriah chapel, took Col. William Gilbreath aside and
admonished him that he " must neither read nor patronize the
Mutual Rights." He indignantly answered, "What I buy and
pay for is my own, and I will read as I please " ; whereupon the
preacher said, "I will give you four weeks to consider about
quitting the Mutual Bights, and if by that time you do not dis-
continue it, I will have you expelled from the church " ; to which
Gilbreath rejoined, "You need not give me five minutes, for I
will read, and also circulate it, if anybody else wants to read the
work." It was an illustration of Dr. Bond's averment, that "a
man may be a good Christian and not a good Methodist." Gil-
breath consulted his brethren of the chapel, feeling alarmed for
the rights of himself and brethren as Christians, and on the 7th
of the ensuing month of May called a meeting of the members,
Rev. John Coe, Chairman, and Joseph Gilbreath, Secretary, and
after considering the menace of the preacher, which they set forth
in resolutions, also resolved, "That we consider it a duty which
we owe to ourselves and our posterity to withdraw from the
Methodist Episcopal Church." The society thus organized con-
sisted of thirty-four members, so that when the circuit preacher

238 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

reached this appointment on his next round he found but two of
the flock in his church. The Rev. John Coe took temporary
charge of them. Similar proceedings led to the withdrawal of
Alexander Bobbins, John Wilburn, and Alson Gray, local
preachers, and a society of sixteen members was organized at
Liberty, so that from the three, Moriah, Bethel, and Liberty,
six circuits were subsequently formed in western North Carolina.
Alson Gray took the field and was indefatigable as an organizer.
A memorable instance was that at Sandy Eidge, where he formed
a class of three women, — Mrs. Lindsey, and Mrs. Anna and Har-
riet Chipman, — who after more than a year's prayerful fidelity
were rewarded with a gracious revival, and their numbers were
greatly augmented, so that this class in 1844 had grown into a
society of 170 members.

April 19, 1829, a Conference was held in New York, at the
Sullivan Street church, of "Methodist Reform" preachers and
delegates, claiming to be an adjourned meeting of an earlier date,
called, as Secretary, by Aaron G. Brewer, one of the ministers
originally of the Stillwell Keformers, but who had now divided,
one section adhering to him and his friends, and another, holding
stricter itinerant views, inclining to the Associated Methodists.
A call appeared in the Mutual Bights for November, 1829, to all
"Associated Methodists" and "Reformed Methodists" of "New
York and eastward " to assemble at Sullivan Street church on the
third Thursday in April, 1830. It was signed by Isaiah Sickles,
Robert McGee, George Thomas, Aaron G. Brewer, and George
Philips. They met accordingly, and after organizing by calling
George Thomas to the chair and George Smith, secretary, the
following were recognized as members. Elders : George Thomas,
James Jorman, George Philips, Asahel Gilbert, Jonas Hobbs,
Levi Bronson, John B. Taylor, Joseph Carwine. Deacons:
Daniel D. Tompkins, William Clayton, Gershom Howland,
Thomas K. Witsel. Lay-representatives : Matthew Vogal, James
Fowler, George Smith, Ephraim Barness, Nathaniel Hopper,
David Holmes, W. McCutchen, Joseph Weeks. George Thomas
was elected President. The stationing power was placed with
two ministers and two laymen, with the right of appeal to the
preachers. Three were received into the travelling connection :
Joseph Carwine, Albert Piercy, and Joseph Lowe. Aaron G.
Brewer's name does not appear, as he had meantime removed to
Georgia and had become associated with the Appling County
society in February, 1829, and thenceforth took a most active
part in the Associated Methodist churches.

MORE INITIAL ANNUAL CONFERENCES 239

The first Virginia Conference organized at Lynchburg, Va.,
May 1, 1829, in the Presbyterian church. Nicholas Snethen was
present as a visitor and preached the ordination sermon. From
the plan of appointments it appears that Alexander McCaine was
elected President, with J. B. Tilden, George Beed, Miles King,
B. G. Burgess, William Pinnell, Eichard Latimore, William M.
Coman, Dr. John French, and John Percival, ministers. No list
of delegates is accessible. Three camp-meetings were held in
Virginia during the ensuing summer: at Coman's Well; near
Blount's meeting-house, Isle of Wight County; and one near Nor-
folk. The first South Alabama Conference organized May 1,
1829. It was attended by sixteen preachers, whose names are
not obtainable from the records. Rev. Britton Capel was elected
President, and Seymour Powell, Secretary. The work was laid
off, and preachers appointed, among the number Peyton Bibb.
A second Conference was held September 16, 1829, which reported
881 in membership in society. It was convened near Smith's
Ferry, in Perry County.1 A call was made for the organization
of a Philadelphia Conference June 25, 1829, by Dunn, Cropper,
Dickens, and Webb. It assembled in "Keyser's church," October
8-10, 1829. Nicholas Snethen was elected Chairman pro tern.,
but presided during the whole session. The venerable John
Smith, an honorable ex-itinerant from Delaware, was elected
Conference President, and the appointing power was placed in
his hands, subject to an appeal from the preachers. Eighteen

1 A " History of Methodism in Alabama," by Anson West, D.D. Nashville
Pub. House, M. E. Church, South. 1893. Large 8vo. 755 pp. Cloth.

A very thorough work, devoting to the Methodist Protestant Church much
larger space than historians of the M. E. Church allow, and containing some facts
which the writer of this " History of Reform " has found nowhere else. Chap.
17, covering pp. 404 to 426, as also chap. 38, pp. 740 to 755, are given to the Metho-
dist Protestant Church. Portions of it are laboriously argumentative to show its
polity in the weakest light, with some facts which need not be gainsaid as to the
tendencies of extremes in its system. Altogether, however, those who wish inti-
mate acquaintance with the organization of the Church in Alabama cannot afford
to overlook these chapters as furnishing much information, which it is impracti-
cable to incorporate in this " History of Reform." Its flippant criticisms can be
excused in such a loyal Methodist Episcopalian as Dr. West. He furnishes infor-
mation on a few points. The first Annual Conference was held at Rocky Mount,
and he says that it is certain that Revs. Peyton Bibb, Britton Capel, Arnold
Campbell, Peyton S. Graves, Samuel S. Meek, Elijah Meyers, Eli Terry, and prob-
ably Joseph Walker, were present. He also informs that as early as 1823, in
Dutch Bend, Autauga County, a meeting was held composed of local preachers
who memorialized the General Conference of 1824 for larger recognition, and
initiated Reform in the state.

240 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

ministers and fifteen licensed preachers, with the laity, composed
the Conference, but their names are not accessible. There were
representatives present from the Reformed Methodists of Penn-
sylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, and the western section of New
York. From the plan of appointments a list of preachers present
is partially supplied, as well as indicating the territory covered
by the work in its inchoate condition : Philadelphia, Thomas W.
Pearson; Kensington (Philadelphia), James W. Holmes; Darby
(Pa.), Thomas L. Coates; Sussex (Del.), Hiram B. Harold;
New Castle (Del.), Samuel Budd; Monmouth (N. J.), George
A. Raybold; New Hanover (N. J.), James Brindle; Barnesboro
(N. J.), William Stevens; Trenton Station (N. J.), John S.
Christine; Sharptown (N. J.), Thomas Cheeseman; Andes
(Pa.), Thomas West; Salem (Pa.), Joseph Barlow; Havanna
(N. Y.), John G. Wilson; New York, Thomas G.Witsel; Mis-
sionary in New Jersey, James Chester. Strong resolutions were
passed against intemperance, and in favor of Sabbath-schools;
also in support of the Mutual Bights. The committee signing
this report was Thomas Dunn, Joseph Cramer, Ebenezer Cropper,
W. S. Stockton.

As early as 1826 "Eeformed Methodist" societies were formed
in Rutherford, Bedford, and Williamson counties in Tennessee.
At a delegated convention of these societies, held at Unionville,
August 30, 1828, of which Hayman Bailey was Chairman and
Richard Warner, Secretary, these societies consolidated and re-
solved to cooperate with the Methodist Reformers in Baltimore
and elsewhere, and W. B. Elgin represented them in the General
Convention of November, 1828. They accepted the Conventional
Articles, organized a Quarterly Conference, and supplied the field
with preachers until an Annual Conference could be organized.
The first Tennessee Conference convened at Union Camp-ground,
near Unionville, Tenn., October 8, 1829. The only information
concerning it is communicated to the Mutual Bights by Thomas
Potts and James L. Armstrong, Corresponding Committee, Decem-
ber 5, 1829. Nineteen members were recognized, eight ordained
ministers and eleven laymen. Three other preachers were en-
titled to seats but absent, and seven others under license within
the Conference bounds, which now included all the Southwest to
Texas. Thomas Potts was the Superintendent of Union circuit,
and probably the first President of the Conference. Dr. James L.
Armstrong was the leading layman. The second Conference was
to be held at "Ebenezer, in Rutherford County, near Hoover's

ANNUAL CONFERENCES CONTINUED

241

Gap."1 There were twenty conversions at the accompanying
camp.

The first Ohio Conference, which included all the western ter-
ritory occupied by Beforrners, assembled in Cincinnati, October
15, 1829. The following is the roster of ministers and laymen,
a number of whom were not present : —

Ministers

George Waddle
John Wilson
James McKoy
C. Springer
Evert Richman
Joseph Thrapp
James Flemming
Jeremiah L. Leslie
William Hamilton
Benson Goldsbury
Daniel Inskeep
William Hughey
Allison G. Keys
Edward Kearns

Hector Sandford
Saul Henkle
Jonathan Flood
Ambrose Jones
Moses M. Henkle
James Towler
Adjet McGuire
Robert Dobbins
Joel Dolby, Sr.
Reuben McDaniel
Asa Shinn
John Price
John Haughton
David English

1 A year later Dr. Armstrong, in furnishing minutes of the Conference of 1831,
states that an abstract of the Conference of 1830 was furnished the Mutual Rights,
acknowledged, but never published. It was in this way that these records are
irrevocably lost.

The Tennessee Conference of September, 1831, was in " Bedford" county, and
therefore probably at the Union Camp-ground near Unionville. The writer, on a
visit to this Conference, had pointed out to him by Rev. Dr. B. F. Duggan, the old
barn in which the first " Union Society" was organized, on the outskirts of the
town. The Conference of 1831 reorganized under the constitution, and from the
full minutes furnished by Dr. Armstrong in both the Correspondent and Methodist
Protestant, a, list of ministers and laymen is given, most of whom were probably
in the original body, and it is here preserved in honor of these outpost pioneers of
Reform : President, Richard W. Morris, Oswell Potts, James Ray, James Williams,
Samuel Elliott,* B. S. Ragsdale, Allen Blankership, Conellum H. Hines, Charles
L. Jeffries* Joseph Walker,* William B. Elgin,* William Peck,* John Cox,*
Thomas D. Stanley, Hayman Bailey, David Goodner, Thomas S. Stillwell,* James
Edmondson, Thomas Potts, William Potts, and John McClure*; lay delegates:
Thomas Burgess, Richard Warner, George Jones, James L. Armstrong, Joshua
Hooker, Mark Whitaker* Bailey Chandler* Silas Tarver,* Edward D. Tarver,
MicajahB. Procter * John Martin,* William Sanson,* and Elijah Renshaw.* Resin
B. Collins and James D. Hines, from southern Kentucky, were received, also a
letter from Jacob Sexton, Arkansas Territory, asking to be received with thirty
members, also a like request from East Tennessee. The membership reported
was 417. " A Missionary and Preachers' Aid Society " was organized. The next
Conference at Civilorder, Bedford County, first Wednesday in December, 1832,
James L. Armstrong, Secretary.

* Absent.

VOL. II — B

242

HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

Ministers (continued)

Jesse D. Dorman
William B. Evans
Amos Chitwood
William B. Collins
Joseph H. Overstreet
Benjamin W- Johnson
James Sims
George Brown
Charles Avery
William Stevenson
James Meendon
Josiah Foster

Lewis Browning
Jeremiah Browning
Charles Scott
George Palmer
Jacob Meyers
Levi Keeves
Samuel Thompson
James Paris
James Ward
Roddick H. Horn
William Peeves
Joel Dolby, Jr.

Lay-Delegates

R. Thompson
Joseph Grubb
Robert Curran
Olcote White
William Camp
Henry Nash
John Johnson
Joseph Rockhold
John Adair
William Henton
Joseph Whitridge
Archibold McConkey
Joseph Newlove
Nathaniel Cartnell

Stephen Bell
Obed Wain
Amos Metcalf
Philip Hare
John Home
William Young
Ezekiah Hall
William Disney
Moses Lyon
Robert Monroe
James H. Wallace
Henry C. Dorsey
Joseph J. Amos
Christopher Wallmsley

It was "resolved that W. B. Evans's 'Brief View of the Govern-
ment of the Methodist Episcopal Church, set forth in Questions
and Answers, ' be approved and recommended by this Conference,
and that another edition be published forthwith." This little
pamphlet has a history which may be covered at this its first
mention. It was a clear and concise showing, and a few years
after a supplement was issued by Bev. John H. Honour of South
Carolina in the same form, setting forth the polity of the Metho-
dist Protestant Church in contrast, with a brief outline of Reform
history and Dr. Bascom's "Summary of Bights." A copy now
before the writer is one of the ninth edition, 1844, and makes a
24mo paper-covered booklet of fifty-four pages. Numerous edi-
tions were issued, and it had a wide influence as an educational
pamphlet where Beform was little known. From the accident
that it was issued in yellow paper covers, it came to be nicknamed

USE OF THE PBESS BY BEFOBMEBS 243

by the brethren of the old Church " the yellow jacket," in travesty
of its biting logic and convincing facts. It is estimated that one
hundred thousand copies were issued by the Baltimore Book Con-
cern. In later years, when the bitterness of the contention had
subsided, its circulation was no longer pressed by the Eeformers,
until in still later years the continued misrepresentations of the
origin and the principles of the new Church by the press of the
old-side led to Paris's "Manual," and within fifteen years to
Dr. L. W. Bates's " Contrast." Notwithstanding these issues, the
writer's sober judgment, reenforced by that of many others con-
versant with the past forty or fifty years, is that it has been a
fundamental error of the Reformed Church that the press was
not extensively availed of and large expenditure made to set
before Christians of every name in dispassionate argument the
history and issues of 1820-30 in Methodism. While there is
nothing so disreputable, or that should be utterly frowned out of
existence, as Church proselytism, if this denomination had a
right to organize under the necessities of expulsion and persecu-
tion, and its principles are worth the sacrifice of its noble Fathers
and Founders, then no labor can be too great to vindicate their
memories and perpetuate their principles in a distinct denomina-
tion. It may be truthfully said, to the lasting honor of the
Eeform Methodists, that it has not been a proselyting body.
Dr. Bassett, who was closely connected with it in the West from
before 1828, bears this testimony: "The writer never knew an
instance in which our brethren sought to effect secession from
the old Church," and in the writer's nearly fifty years' connection
with it no such instance is recalled in the East and South. If
such cases can be historically proven, they must be the exceptions
to a certified rule. The Ohio Conference invested the stationing
authority in the Pxesident, Asa Shinn, with Cornelius Springer
and George Brown. Eight preachers were elected deacons, and
nineteen deacons elders, so great was the demand for properly
authorized ministers in the new and enlarging work. John
Houghton was elected Secretary. The numbers reported in mem-
bership about two thousand. It was recommended that Ken-
tucky, Indiana, and Illinois be set off as Conferences so soon as
the resident quarterly conferences shall take the necessary action.
The Rochester Conference of the " Methodist Society " met in
Ontario, Wayne County, N. Y., February 13, 1830. In com-
mittee of the whole it resolved to adopt the Conventional Articles
of the Associated Methodist Churches. Dr. James Covel was

244 HISTOBY OF METHODIST BEFORM

elected President and Orren Miller Secretary, and the body-
adopted the name of Genesee Conference. The appointments
were divided into Rochester, Conhocton, Genesee, and Oneida
districts. The membership is reported at 442, though a number
of the circuits made no report. Orren Miller was a preacher in
the old Church since 1811, and, entertaining Reform principles,
awaited an opportunity for church connection akin to them. In
1821 he entered the "Methodist Society," and in 1824 organized
the Rochester Conference. The preachers stationed for 1830
were: R. Andrews, Z. Covel, J.Fister, N. Palmer, D. P. Ketchum,
Dr. J. Covel, O. Miller, J. A. Miller, S. Brownson, E. Brownson,
T. Buck, Joseph Jacobs, B. Landon, H. Sheffield, T. Freeman,
Colburn Blake, S. Pierce, C. Mars, J. West, J. Heath, and J.
Donnald, missionaries; G. E. Steadman, D. Washburn, 0. Medary,
without appointments. The next Conference to meet at Ogden,
Monroe County, first Thursday in February, 1831. x

The first Vermont Annual Conference, according to previous
notice, assembled at Shelburne, February 19, 1830, and Luther
Chamberlain was elected President and Chandler Walker, Secre-
tary. The preachers present were: Luther Chamberlain, Na-
thaniel Gage, Chandler Walker, David Ferris, and Thomas A.
Carpenter. The laymen: Daniel Norton, Solomon Holcomb,
Edward Farrington, Nathaniel Stockwell, and Abner Croff . Next
Conference to meet at Monktonborough, last Tuesday in May,
1831.

The first Georgia Annual Conference was held in Newton
County, on the 22d of July, 1830. It elected Eppes Tucker, an
ex-itinerant of the old Church, President, and Harrison Jones,
Secretary. The following are named by Paris as ministers : Eppes
Tucker, Aaron G. Brewer (who took an active part in bringing
about the absorption of the New York " Methodist Society " with
the Associated Methodists, and on removal to Georgia, pending

1 This has also been designated as the First Annual Conference, but as the
Rochester Conference of the "Reformed Methodists" complied with the only
condition precedent, the adoption of the Conventional Articles to become a
Methodist Protestant body, they acted as such, and should be recognized as the
first Conference. The ministers present at the conference of 1831 were Isaac
Fister, Salmon Brownson, James Heath, Nelson Palmer, Orren Miller, J. A.
Miller, Elias B. Dare, Henry Lyon, and Zenos Covel. The laymen were Reuben
Moffat, Robert Graham, Edmond Wanray, Washington Rathburn, Jacob Bigelow,
James Stevens, Eden Foster, David P. Green, and Samuel Strowger. The deacons
were Robert Andrews and Thomas Buck. Orren Miller was elected President,
and Zenos Covel Secretary. The number of members reported was 411, with no
returns from Bennington circuit and Utica station.

ANNUAL CONFERENCES ORGANIZED 245

the transition, took a most prominent part in the new Church, and
for many years was abundant in labors for the cause of Christ
and Eeform Methodism), Jesse Morris, E. W. W. Wynne, James
Lowery, B. P. Ward, Ethel Tucker, Eobert Walker, Charles
Williamson, Harrison Jones, John A. Eussell, Eobert McCorkle,
Thomas Gardner, Henry Saxon, B. Sweringen, James Hodges,
Abraham Lucas, William Pentecost, J. E. Swain, and C. P. Wither-
spoon. There were twelve lay-delegates in attendance, but their
names are not given. There were laid off eleven circuits and one
mission. A. G. Brewer was appointed Conference missionary. A
camp-meeting was held in connection with the Conference. About
a dozen churches were soon organized in different counties, some
as early as 1827.

The second Virginia Conference was held May 20, 1830, in
Suffolk, and continued five days. The following ministers, recog-
nized as members, were probably also members of the first Con-
ference.

Ministers Laymen

Alexander McCaine Eobert H. Gray

John French George Percival

Miles King William S. Slater, Sr.

Benedict Burgess Samuel Berry

W. H. Coman T. Graham

Eichard Lattimore J. J. Burroughs

Horatio E. Hall Lewis F. Coshy

Crawley Finney John L. Diggs

Charles Roundtree Elijah Phillips

William Pinnell David Armistead

Ira A. Easter John Phillips, Sr.

John M. Willis Matthew Powell
John Blount
Jacob M. Jennings
John G. Whitfield
E. B. Thomson

J. J. Burroughs was appointed Secretary, Alexander McCaine
Chairman, until the election of Dr. John French, President. The
Conference by resolution suggested the formation of a Book Eoom,
and to place the official organ under the General Convention with
the election of an editor. There were seven circuits and one
station, Lynchburg, to which Alexander McCaine was appointed
this year.

The Alabama Conference held its second session near Smith's
Ferry, Perry County, September 16, 1830. Britton Capel was

246 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

reelected President, and Seymour Powell Secretary. The follow-
ing ministers were recognized as members, and were probably
also members of the first Conference session : —

Ministers Laymen

Britton Capel David Graves

Peyton S. Graves R. S. Livingston

Elijah Myers Abner McGee

Eli Terry Benajah S. Bibb

Peyton Bibb Larkin Cleveland

William Rice Stephen Pierce

Joseph D. Lee Mark Howard

James Sharp Robert Mayes

George A. Campbell Samuel Shaddock

William Cole Benjamin Dunn

James Holley Seymour Powell

Benjamin Dulaney James K. Benson

Samuel Oliver Edward H. Cook

John B. Purdew Absalom Carter

Samuel H. Meek John Cook

James Meek James D. Stanton

John Meek James M. Powell

Wiley J. Stanton C. S. Traylor

John McCormick Thomas M. Smith

Peter Loper
Edward H. Cook

Jacob Dorley and Elias Carroll were received as travelling
preachers. The work was divided into five vast circuits.

At the second session of the Tennessee Conference, held on the
second Thursday in September, 1830, the records give as preach-
ers: E. W. Morris, President, 0. Potts, T. Burgess, B. H. Bags-
dale, W M. Elliott, H. Bailey, and T. L. Potts, who received
appointments. Four new circuits were formed and the members
reported 345.

Thus an effort has been made to preserve from oblivion the
preachers and laymen who were foremost in the formation of the
new Church in active labors. A few incidental matters need
mention to cover the two years from the Convention of November,
1828, to that of November, 1830. The reader will recall the
presence of the venerable Nicholas Snethen at various Confer-
ences, notably at Lynchburg, Va., and then as far north as
Philadelphia. Becalling his asthmatic ailment and other in-
firmities, such travel by the slow post-chaise of that day, and
largely at his own charges, is an indication of the zeal and fidelity

CEBTIF1CATES BEFUSED : EXCEPTIONS NOTED 247

of this ministerial father of Keform. Alexander McCaine in the
South was indefatigable, answering all calls and serving wherever
his presence was demanded. The mention is deserved, and be-
sides it serves to refute the calumny of Eobert Emory in the
"Life" of his father as to McCaine, in the crucial period of
1829-30. His filial zeal betrayed him into the false statement :
"The party which McCaine had attempted to promote became
ashamed of their champion; and he himself shortly after retired
from public view, to repent, we would fain hope, of the wrong he
had done to the living and the dead, to individuals and to the
Church. " l Camp-meetings were frequent both North and South.
Six were held in Maryland during the summer of 1830, and all
of them eminently successful. New "Associated Reformed
churches " are announced with phenomenal frequency, consider-
ing the difficulties under which in every instance they were formed.
Not a few were isolated, and in consequence of the impossibility
of keeping them supplied with preaching, after heroic struggle
were compelled to disband. A church of over 300 white and some
150 colored members grew up in the city of Louisville, Ky. ; but,
after various mishaps, suitable pastoral supply being chief, it dis-
organized, and for half a century the new Church was unknown,
until within a very recent period a reorganization has taken place.
An instance has been discovered by the writer in which the
pastors of the old Church consented to give certificates to with-
drawing members, and it is noted in the interest of impartial
history. Dr. John French organized by invitation a church of
thirty -two members in Boston, September, 1830, and says: "I
am informed that the stationed preachers here conduct with great
propriety, and grant certificates of dismission freely to all that
ask for them."2

1 During McCaine's missionary travels in the South in 1830, arriving at Colum-
bia, S. C, while the legislature of the state was in session, he was invited to
preach, on a Sabbath night, by a formal and unanimous resolution of the House,
which he accepted. There is said to have been no precedent for this action. It
helps to counteract the vilifications of the Itinerant, some of whose correspond-
ents hounded his tracks at this very time.

2 This is the exception to the rule noted in a previous part of this History as
to Dr. Buckley's averment and the "withdrawal" of members from the M. E.
Church in the early days, certificates being refused them. Since this exception
was discovered and here acknowledged, another has been made by Rev. Dr. George
Brown, in his " Itinerant Life," p. 425, referring to the fifty ladies who withdrew
in 1827: "All these Christian ladies obtained certificates of their good standing
from Rev. J. M. Hanson, the preacher in charge. This was at least one act of jus-
tice on the part of Mr. Hanson." If a fact, there is no other mention of it in the
Reform or anti-reform literature of the time. Dr. Brown does not give his author-

248 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

The first auxiliary Superannuated Society was organized in
Baltimore, at St. John's church, known as the Phoebian Society,
by the women of the station, which continued a useful existence
for fifty years at East Baltimore station, and then was merged into
the regular Conference society. It is the first instance on record.
The second volume of the Mutual Rights was brought to a close
with the number of November 1, 1830. It was turned over to
the Convention by its editor and publisher, Dennis B. Dorsey.
It had been faithfully conducted.

Two years of the organizing and propagating crusade of the
agents appointed by the Convention of 1828 had resulted success-
fully, as the preceding pages give evidence. There was a vitality
in the principle of Lay-Representation that could not be extin-
guished, despite the fact that of the itinerants who had espoused
and expressed adhesion not one in ten found it possible to main-
tain open fealty. From such a distinguished example as H. B.
Bascom downward, the alternative was want of bread or plenty.
As in his own case, had no dependents been involved, — wife,
children, parents, and family ties,— it is morally certain that he
and many others would have followed the example of Shinn,
Brown, Springer, and their compeers ; but while the heroic self-
abnegation of such men will never cease to win the meed of
approval and admiration, reflection need not be cast upon the
hundreds who hesitated and then silently submitted, hoping, it
may be, for the more propitious opportunity. Reflection is on
those only who, with the zeal of perverts and the ambition of
ecclesiastics, not only cowered, but curried favor of Episcopacy
by denying their opinions and repudiating Reform associations.
It is the province of this History to mark these to the extent the
truth of history demands, and to rescue the memory of their
quondam friends from the aspersions so persistently cast upon
them by criminating chroniclers. That a vastly larger number
of laymen should have been intimidated, meeting the crisis with
submission, if not repudiation, not only accords with the prophet's

ity for it. He was resident in the West and not presumed to have intimate ac-
quaintance with the local doings of Baltimore. Elsewhere in this volume is also
noted the fact that the book of register made by Hanson during his administration
was left by him in the parsonage, and came into the possession of a Reformer,
Robert B. Varden, and sections of it were afterward published in facsimile, also
given in this volume, but this register furnishes no evidence that these women
were given certificates. Conceding, however, that it was as Dr. Brown states, it
makes only a second exception to what was the well-known rule, and so does not
affect the force of my objection to his editorial statement.

SUCCESS OF THE REFORM MOVEMENT 249

plaint, "like people like priest," but is more excusable. Among
them defections were plentiful.

As already stated, the pages of both the Itinerant and the
Mutual Bights were largely occupied with gleesome evidences in
the former that " Eeform was going down," and in the latter with
refutations of false reports during these two years. Some one
personally flaunting the declaration " going down " in the face of
Asa Shinn, he made characteristic answer: "Yes, it is going
down, but it is like the Ohio River, broadening and widening as
it goes." It became a catch-phrase with the Reformers, and with
much truth, as shall be presently exhibited. Williams, than
whom no one was better prepared for a truthful estimate, in his
"History" says: "Taking all the circumstances into view, the
Methodist Protestant Church had prospered beyond all precedent.
When she first organized under the Conventional Articles of 1828,
there were perhaps not more than 1000 members, though the
Convention represented, probably, 3000 members of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church. The Convention of 1830 represented
about 5000 members of the Associated Methodist churches.
Four years after that period, in 1834, there were, according
to the minutes of the respective Annual Conferences, 26,587
members in the Methodist Protestant Church." Of the 5000
estimated for 1830, 2000 were probably conversions under
evangelistic labors at camp and revival meetings under Eeform
auspices.1

At the several Annual Conferences organized from 1828 to
1830, representatives were elected to the Constitutional Conven-
tion. Williams says: "Much anxiety was felt on all hands.
The Episcopal Methodists feared the development of principles
and rules of government which would cast their system more
deeply into the shade, but hoped we would fall out by the way ;

1The late Bishop Matthew Simpson, in his "One Hundred Years of Metho-
dism," p. 314, says, speaking of the Methodist Protestant Church from 1828 to
1830 : " In this secession, within a few years, probably some 30,000 members with-
drew." Though in the later years of his useful life he was an uncompromising
advocate of Lay-Representation, in common with all the historians of the Old
Church, it seems impossible for him to refer to the " Radicals " without manifest
prejudice and bias. This thirty thousand secession served a purpose on page 314,
though it is a wild guess without data, but on page 125 of the same work he says,
in a brief tabulation of statistics for the period, misleading in its character : " The
secession, so far as numbers were concerned, scarcely occasioned a ripple on the
surface." On page 123, he qualifies, " It was supposed that from 1828 to 1834 there
may have been thirty thousand." It more probably did not amount to a third of
it in these six years all told.

250 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

some of them predicted this with great assurance, and fixed our
final dissolution at a period not exceeding three years. The
Reformers, on the other hand, while they felt great solicitude
that the Convention might prepare a system worthy of admira-
tion, did not appear to dread any fatal diversity of opinion and
sentiment which might militate seriously against the general
interests of the churches."

About this time some of the leaders of anti-reform, through
their periodical, gave utterance to the following Romish dogma :
"If a minister expatriate, he thereby dissolves the compact in
virtue of which he received and holds his official functions ; and
of course those functions cease; those official powers are the
property of the Church for whose use they were conferred, and
were lent on certain stipulated terms, which terms can only be
performed within the Church to which the property belongs."
There seems to have been no care of the logical consequence, for
if true, then all the Protestant ordinations of Europe are spurious
and invalid as derived from Luther, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Cal-
vin, and the fathers of the English reformation. At this day the
ministers of the mother Church will marvel at such assumptions,
forgetting that the whole trend of ecclesiastical dogmas, as they
were "received from their fathers" of the Coke-Asbury-Soule
school, was Romeward. On this theory Wesley's ordinations
were invalid, and so the "fathers." It was of a piece with the
logical incoherence and inconsequence that bolstered the anoma-
lous Methodist Episcopal system. The whole warp and woof of
it is fallacy and sophism, however specious.

The Committee of the Convention of 1828 to prepare a Consti-
tution and Discipline had diligently and judiciously used the
intervening time in its preparation, while others invented inde-
pendent drafts. Snethen had said in 1828 : " Our book of disci-
pline will never be complete without a bill of rights." A close
friend of H. B. Bascom's among the leading laymen, John J.
Harrod, had suggested to him that as the Convention would need
such a bill he should prepare one. Willing to serve the cause in
any way possible to him, he complied. He was travelling agent
for the American Colonization Society, in the neighborhood of
Cincinnati, at the time. His biographer informs that he went
to the city, supplied himself with the "Federalist" and other
works, and shut himself up to its composition in a country inn a
few miles back of the city. The product was that masterful
"Summary Declaration of Rights, explanatory of the Reasons

BASCOM' S "BILL OF JRIG-HTS" IDENTIFIED 251

and Principles of Government." 1 It laid under contribution his
strongest and freshest powers, and is the one outcome of his facile
pen which will never perish. It consists of twenty-two Articles,
links of a chain without that " weakest point " endangering it.
It was then forwarded to Harrod in Baltimore, but did not reach
him until the Convention had passed its initial work and was
far advanced to completion. It was presented, respectfully re-
ceived, then withdrawn, apparently by Bascom's friend. It was
solicited again, but seems no more to have come before the Con-
vention officially. Bascom's biographer, Bev. Moses M. Henkle,
offers surmises for its failure, and makes claims for its recog-
nition, even to the exclusion of the "Elementary Principles,"
which had already passed as a bill of rights by the Convention.
It would be futile to consider these surmises. It was prefixed to
the first edition of the printed Constitution and Discipline by
Harrod, Book Agent, as "prepared by a friend." Its authorship
was some years afterward publicly acknowledged by Bascom.1 It
was subsequently, by authority of several General Conferences,
bound up with the Constitution as an exponent of its principles,
and widely circulated in various forms by Beformed Methodists
in America and in England. The full text of it is presented in
Appendix I to first volume. A new chapter must recite the
doings of the Convention of 1830.

1 " Life of Bascom," by Moses M. Henkle, p. 371. Also Methodist Protes-
tant, September 21, 1850, an editorial producing this evidence of authorship.

CHAPTER XV

Convention of 1830 in Baltimore ; organization ; roster of members ; composition

— Principal business forming a Constitution and Discipline ; various drafts pre-
sented representing the two parties of centrifugalists and centripetalists ; anal-
ogous parties in the United States Convention of 1787 — The Constitution as
adopted ; incidents of the Convention ; contention over certain views ; Snethen
opposed to another " Church " ; preferred " churches " ; striking views on New
Testament polity by Snethen and Dr. A Webster ; also by Wesley in his Notes

— Love the essence of law ; law the embodiment of ecclesiasticism ; logical
philosophy as bearing upon it — History of certain articles of the Constitution ;
certain moots as to non-action of the Convention, Articles of Religion, etc.
— Incidental business of importance — Who finally signed the Constitution

— Convention adjourned with prayer by Asa Shinn ; Francis Waters, President,
Lipscomb and Brown, Secretaries.

The Associated Methodist Churches met in Convention at St.
John's church, Liberty Street, Baltimore, November 2, 1830.
Rev. Dr. John Trench was called to the chair, and the Conven-
tion opened with religious service. W- C. Lipscomb of George-
town, D. C, was appointed Secretary. It may be well to note
the fact, as a precedent, that he was not a representative to the
Convention, but filled the position with such satisfaction until
the afternoon of the 22d of November, that a vote of thanks was
unanimously tendered him. The following named persons were
found duly elected members of the Convention, by the respective
Annual Conferences of the Associated Methodist Churches : —

Vermont
Eev. Nathaniel Gage Mr. Daniel Norton

New York and Canada
Eev. Daniel Bromley

Genesee

Eev. Isaac Fister Mr. John Woodward 1

Eev. Elias B. Dare Mr. William G. Miller i

Eev. James Covel 1 Mr. Eden Foster 1

Eev. Orren Miller1 Eichard Harris *

1 These were absent.
252

BEFOBM CONVENTION OF NOVEMBER, 1830 253

New York

Rev. George Thomas

Mr. George Smith

Pennsylvania

Kev. John Smith
Eev. Thomas Pearson
Eev. Hiram E. Harrold
Eev. George A. Eaybold
Eev. Samuel Budd
Eev. James Brindle
Eev. Dr. Thomas Dunn
Eev. Kendall S. Cropper
Eev. Dr. Phineas Price 1
Eev. Taber Chadwick
Eev. Sylvester Hutchinson
Eev. Dr. William Morgan
Eev. John Fernon
Eev. David Eundell 1

Maryland
Eev. Eli Henkle
Eev. Wesley W- Wallace
Eev. Dr. John S. Eeese
Eev. Dennis B. Dorsey
Eev. Thomas H. Stockton
Eev. Isaac Webster
Eev. Wm. C. Pool
Eev. Dr. Samuel K. Jennings
Eev. Francis Waters, D.D.
Eev. James E. Williams
Eev. Daniel Zollickoffer
Eev. Benjamin Eichardson
Eev. Slingsby Linthicum
Eev. Thos. Melvin

Caleb Rodney, Esq.1
Mr. Archibald Campbell *
Mr. Ebenezer Cropper
Mr. Arnold S. Naudain
Mr. Jeremiah Stull
Mr. Uriah Baxter 1
Mr. Elisha Chew
Mr. David B. Salter
Mr. James Moore 1
Mr. Eobert Hodgson
Mr. Dr. Wm. K. Mason 1
Mr. Daniel E. Ackley *
Mr. Jeremiah Walton 1
Mr. William S. Stockton

Hon. Philemon B. Hopper
Mr. Gideon Davis
Mr. John J. Harrod
Mr. Henry Willis1
Col. W. Doughty
Mr. Daniel McLeod
James H. Devor, Esq.
Mr. Abner Linthicum
Mr. Elias Crutchley
Mr. Lewis Shipley
Mr. Henry Webster
Mr. John Constable
James Parrott, Esq.1
Mr. Eichard Chambers

Virginia

Eev. Alexander McCaine
Eev. Dr. John French
Eev. Dr. Crawley Finney
Rev. Dr. W. J. Holcombe
Eev. Miles King
Eev. Benedict Burgess

Everard Hall, Esq.

Mr. John Victor *

Mr. William S. Sclater, Sr.

Dr. Andrew Woodly 1

Dr. Hiram Harding

Mr. B. Starke

North Carolina

Eev. Wm. W. Hill
Eev. Willis Harris
Eev. Josiah E. Horn >

S. Whitaker, Esq.
Mr. John F. Bellamy *
Mr. Ivy Harris1

1 These were absent.

254

HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

Rev. Aaron G. Brewer
Rev. Bppes Tucker

Eev. Britton Capel

Eev. Asa Shinn
Kev. Cornelius Springer
Rev. Nicholas Snethen x
Rev. George Brown
Rev. Charles Avery
Rev. John Fordyce *
Rev. Matthew Nelson
Rev. David Edwards 1

Georgia

Alabama

Ohio

Col. Richard A. Blount
Charles Kennon, Esq.

Dr. Edward H. Cook

Mr. James Foster
Mr. Wilson S. Thorn
Mr. Thomas McKeever
Mr. J. B. W. Haynes*
Mr. John Souder1
Mr. D. P. Wilkins1
Mr. Stephen Beall *
Mr. H. C. Dorsey1

Western Virginia
Rev. George A. Read Mr. James Carpenter

Massachusetts
Rev. Thomas F. Norris Col. Amos Binney *

Eev. Baxter H. Eagsdale and Edward B. Tarver were elected
representatives from the Tennessee Conference, September, 1830,
but, not being present, and the notice of the Conference not hav-
ing been published in the Mutual Bights, though sent and acknowl-
edged, this Conference does not appear at the November, 1830,
Convention, as it should have done.

Those specified (see foot-note) were not present, so that out
of 114 ministerial and lay representatives elected 83 were in
attendance, quite as large a proportion as attended the General
Conferences of the Old Church ; though these delegates had their
expenses provided for, while those of the Associated churches,
for the most part, met their own expenses, as well as the loss
incident to three weeks' absence from business by all the laity
and the local ministers, who, a careful examination shows, were
honored with seats in the proportion of one-half the ministerial
representation in nearly all the Conferences. This statement is
demanded to meet the carping criticism quite frequent at that
time by their enemies, that the laymen could not be induced to
attend legislative assemblies of the Church, at least from any
distance. It was also a principle with the Reformers not to over-

1 These were absent.

PHILEMON B. HOPPER.

THOMAS McCOKMICK.

FRANCIS WATERS.

convention's influential pebsonnel 255

weight these assemblies with numbers, for obvious reasons; so
that it was a provision of many years' standing in the Constitu-
tion of the new Church that a General Conference should not be
composed of more than one hundred members, ministerial and
lay. The careful reader of these volumes will also observe that
this Convention was composed of the ablest and most influential
men of the Societies, and represented the intelligence, piety,
business and social position of their respective neighborhoods,
so that after two generations their names continue to represent
these virtues in the Church, though there have not been wanting
degenerate sons of these heroic sires.

The sessions were held three times a day, those of the morning
and afternoon at St. John's and those of the evening at a school-
room on South Street, a kind of executive session, as it was
found desirable and necessary to stop the eavesdropping of their
quondam brethren, for such deliberations. It will also be noted
that Canada and Western Virginia, though recognized, do not
appear as separate Annual Conferences; though the Discipline of
1830 notes a New York and Lower Canada boundary for a Con-
ference, while Western Virginia * is included in the Ohio district.
The Convention then went into a ballot for President, and Francis
Waters, D.D., received forty-five out of fifty-four votes.

The writer has just carefully perused the extant records, con-

1 This Conference, now numerically the second largest in the denomination,
not being of the original number, merits distinctive notice as to the initial
Reform work in this state. Rev. George Nestor, D.D., at the Annual Conference
of 1878, delivered a semi-centennial sermon, bristling with important data and stir-
ring narrative, afterward printed in pamphlet form. Some of the more important
facts are gleaned from it. In October, 1829, on Hacker's Creek, in Lewis County,
an organization was affected under the Conventional Articles, Rev. John Mitchell
and David Smith organizing the first class in what is still called the old Harmony
church, yet preserved as the first built in that section (October, 1819) , and in which
most of the eminent early Reformers had preached- It has been photographed
and a framed copy of it is in the picture gallery of the Baltimore Book Concern.
Rev. H. K. Bonnet, now deceased, was elected class leader, and six months after
the roll showed sixty names. It became a parent society, another being formed
shortly after at the forks of Hacker Creek, and Rev. John Smith elected leader.
The territory included in these two classes now holds a membership in the Church
of over five hundred. An organization was effected in Morgan town by Rev. Cor-
nelius Springer, in the spring of 1830, with Rev. W. H. Marshall as assistant
preacher. Three prominent ministers came of this class, Joseph A. Shackelford,
Asby Pool, and John Clark, the last a leader in the Conference for many years.
In the fall of the same year, probably, Springer and Marshall formed a society
at the forks of the Cheat River. A class was formed at Ball Hill, Green County,
Pa. (within the West Virginia territory) , by Rev. George Brown, February, 1830.
Societies were also formed in Palatine and the neighborhood, where William
Barnes and J. O. Hartley resided, the former surviving until late years ; in Prunty-

256 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

sisting of the original draft of a Constitution presented by
the committee of seven appointed by the Convention of 1828
for that purpose, of which James R. Williams was chairman.
This venerable and almost sacred document is well preserved,
and shows all the amendments and additions which were made
by the Convention to the Committee's work; it is autographi-
cally signed by twenty-nine of the members on the third day
before the final adjournment. This signing was a voluntary act,
and probably accounts for the absence of some important names,
while others undoubtedly withheld as dissenting, in part, from
what was done. The signers are : Nathaniel Gage, Daniel Nor-
ton, Daniel Bromley, James H. Devor, J. S. Reese, D. B. Dor-
sey, James R. Williams, John J. Harrod, Gideon Davis, Elias
Crutchley, Miles King, W. W. Hill, Willis Harris, John Trench,
Eppes Tucker, R. A. Blount, Britton Capel, Edward H. Cook,
George Brown, C. Springer, James Foster, B. Burgess, Isaac
Webster, Benj. Richardson, Eli Henkle, John Smith, Samuel K.
Jennings, Hiram R. Harrold. Thus, it will be seen that all
sections of the country, in about equal proportion, placed their
sign manuals to the instrument in final approval. The writer
has also before him this original draft, printed for the use of
the Convention before amendment, as well as the certified copy
as made by order of the General Conference of 1854 by W- H.
Wills of North Carolina.

In the examination of these documents, you will be impressed
with the prayerful deliberation and wise caution of the Conven-
tion, from the second to the twenty-third inclusive, of Novem-
ber, 1830. One magnetic personality is absent : Nicholas Snethen,
though honored as a representative from the Ohio Conference,
within the bounds of which he had recently removed. His health
was impaired, and to recross, by mail-coach, the mountains, was
probably too much for his endurance. But the other leaders,
Shinn, Jennings, McCaine (late in the session), Brown, Springer,
French, W. W. Hill, Gideon Davis, James R. Williams, and
others, were continuously present through three sessions a day for

town, between the years 1830-34, and has long been a power in that community.
Very early, in Roekford, a class was formed. It is now almost the centre of the
Church work in that state. In later years, at Harrisville, the Morriston neigh-
borhood, in Greenbrier County, Flat Woods, Braxton County, and many other
places, Reform was early introduced and has held a wide influence ever since.
On Teter's Creek, in Barbour County, Rev. George Nestor organized in 1842. The
centennial sermon embalms the names of many of these worthies, and to it refer-
ence is made for fuller particulars.

ORIGINAL DRAFT OF THE CONSTITUTION 257

three weeks. William S. Stockton and his famous son, Thomas
Hewlings, were there. They were not all of one opinion as to
general principles and fundamental policy. As in the Convention
that formed the Constitution of the United States, in 1787, there
were protagonists of centrifugalism and centripetalism, so in this
ecclesiastical assembly; and no criticism will hold against the
one for this reason that does not hold equally in the other, though
there were not wanting old Tories in the one case and old Bour-
bons in the other who twitted and sneered these patriotic men on
the outcome of their deliberations. The revolving years, how-
ever, in either case have vindicated the wisdom and equality of
both these constitutional instruments. There was another differ-
ence of mental attitude among these dissenting Methodists : those
who were for adhering in everything compatible with essential
principles to the old regime of Methodism, and those who were
for departing as widely as the new order proposed should demand,
without much regard to present expediency, as a factor in organ-
ization. These divergencies made the final instrument, as every
other of the kind, a compromise of extremes. And to this day
it is impossible, without dogmatism, to settle the question as to
the wiser course in the light of experience. Notation shall be
made, after the fundamentals of the instrument are laid before
the reader, of some of the salient differences of view among the
representatives, with remarks expressive of the writer's judgment
in a retrospect of sixty-five years ; which the reader may value
accordingly, but will not deem superfluous or impertinent. The
following are the essential features of the new instrument; a
Constitution ordained by the sovereign will of these Methodist
people through their properly constituted representatives : * —

PREAMBLE

We, the Representatives of the Associated Methodist Churches, in General
Convention assembled, acknowledging the Lord Jesus Christ, as the only

1 No constitution can be said to be truly representative of those who ordained
it, until the instrument as formulated by their delegated authority has been rati-
fied by the primary assemblies of the people. Was this the case with the Consti-
tution of the Methodist Protestant Church, as it was the case with the Constitution
of the United States through the Legislatures ? The answer is that, while the
instrument itself did not make provision for such reference, inasmuch as no
Annual Conferences were yet recognized as such, yet the fact of history is that
every Annual Conference afterward organized did so under the Constitution by
formal vote of approval of its provisions. It was at one time doubted whether
a majority of them would so indorse it, but in every instance it proved to be the
case, thus securing a unanimous ratification.

VOL. II — s

258 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

Head of the Church, and the word of God, as the sufficient rule of faith and
practice, in all things pertaining to godliness ; and being fully persuaded that
the representative form of church government is the most scriptural, best
suited to our condition, and most congenial with our views and feelings as
fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God ; and, Whereas,
a written Constitution, establishing the form of Government, and securing
to the Ministers and Members of the Church their rights and privileges, is
the best safeguard of Christian liberty ; We, therefore, trusting in the pro-
tection of Almighty God, and acting in the name and by the authority of our
constituents, do ordain and establish, and agree to be governed by the
following elementary principles and Constitution : —

ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLES

1. A Christian Church is a society of believers in Jesus Christ, and is of
divine institution.

2. Christ is the only Head of the Church ; and the word of God the only
rule of faith and conduct.

3. No person who loves the Lord Jesus Christ, and obeys the gospel of
God our Saviour, ought to be deprived of church membership.

4. Every man has an inalienable right to private judgment, in matters of
religion ; and an equal right to express his opinion, in any way which will
not violate the laws of God, or the rights of his fellow-men.

6. Church trials should be conducted on gospel principles only ; and no
minister or member should be excommunicated except for immorality ; the
propagation of unchristian doctrines ; or for the neglect of duties enjoined by
the word of God.

6. The pastoral or ministerial office and duties are of divine appointment ;
and all elders in the church of God are equal ; but ministers are forbidden to
be lords over God's heritage, or to have dominion over the faith of the
saints.

7. The Church has a right to form and enforce such rules and regulations
only, as are in accordance with the holy scriptures, and may be necessary, or
have a tendency to carry into effect the great system of practical Chris-
tianity.

8. Whatever power may be necessary to the formation of rules and regu-
lations, is inherent in the ministers and members of the Church ; but so much
of that power may be delegated, from time to time, upon a plan of represen-
tation, as they may judge necessary and proper.

0. It is the duty of all ministers and members of the Church to maintain
godliness, and to oppose all moral evil.

10. It is obligatory on ministers of the gospel to be faithful in the dis-
charge of their pastoral and ministerial duties ; and it is also obligatory on
the members, to esteem ministers highly for their works' sake, and to render
them a righteous compensation for their labours.

11. The Church ought to secure to all her official bodies the necessary
authority for the purposes of good government ; but she has no right to
create any distinct or independent sovereignties.

PRINCIPLES AND CONSTITUTION 259

CONSTITUTION

Article I

Title

This Association shall be denominated, The Methodist Protestant
Church, comprising the Associated Methodist Churches.

Article II
Terms of Membership

I. There is only one condition required of those who apply for member-
ship in an Associated Methodist Church, viz. : A desire to flee from the wrath
to come, and be saved by grace, through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ ;
with an avowed determination to walk in all the commandments of God
blameless.

But those who may continue therein must give evidence of this desire and
determination, by conforming to such rules of moral discipline as the word
of God requires.

II. There shall be a state of probationary privileges, in which persons
shall be held as candidates for admission into membership in this Church,
preparatory to their being received into full membership, by a compliance
with the terms thereof.

III. The children of our members, and those under their guardianship,
shall be recognized as enjoying probationary privileges, and held as candi-
dates for membership ; and may be put into classes, as such, with the consent
of their parents or guardians.

Article III
Division into Districts, Circuits, and Stations

I. Those parts of the United States embraced by this Association, shall
be divided into districts, having respectively such boundaries as may be
agreed on at this Convention, subject to those alterations which may be
made or authorized, from time to time, by the General Conference.

II. Each district shall be divided into circuits and stations, by its Annual
Conference.

III. Every minister or preacher, removing from one district to another ;
and every member removing from one circuit, station, or church to another,
having a certificate of his or her good standing, shall be entitled to member-
ship in any other district, circuit, station or Associated Methodist Church
within the limits of this Association, to which he or she may apply for
membership.

Article IV

On receiving Churches, &c.

I. Any number of believers united as a religious Society or church,
embracing the principles of religious truth held by this Association, adopting

260 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

this Constitution, and conforming to our book of discipline and mea™> o
grace, shall, at their request, made to the president of an Annual Coherence,
or the superintendent of a circuit or station, be recognized as an Associated
Methodist Church, and be entitled to all the privileges granted by this Con-
stitution ; subject, however, to the decision of the most adjacent Quarterly

f OUT PTGTIOP

II. An Associated church or society shall be composed of any number
of members residing sufficiently near each other to assemble statedly for
public worship, and to transact its temporal business. And every church
shall be divided, when it becomes necessary, into smaller companies or
classes, for the purposes of religious instruction and edification.

Ill Every church or society shall have power, by the concurrence of a
majority of two-thirds of its qualified male members, present at any meeting
called for the purpose, to purchase, build, lease, sell, rent, or otherwise
obtain or dispose of property, for the mutual benefit of the church. Each
church shall also have power to admit persons into full membership ; and to
try censure, or expel unworthy members, in accordance with the provisions
of this Constitution, and the rules of discipline.

IV. But no church whatever shall be continued in connexion with this
Association, which does not conform to this constitution, and the regulations
contained in the book of discipline ; or which may hereafter reject any part
or provision thereof.

Aeticle V

Leaders' Meeting

In every station there shall be a leaders' meeting, composed of all the class
leaders and stewards ; the superintendent shall be chairman of the meeting.

Article VI
Quarterly Conferences

I. There shall be four Quarterly Conferences in each circuit and station,
every conference year, to be composed of all the ministers, preachers,
exhorters, stewards and leaders, and trustees, in full membership, belonging
to the circuit or station. Provided that the superintendent shall have
authority to call special meetings of the quarterly conference at other times,
when circumstances make it necessary.

II. Each Quarterly Conference shall be vested with power to examine into
the official character of all its members, and to admonish or reprove as occa-
sion may require ; to grant to persons, properly qualified and recommended
by the class of which the applicant is a member, license to preach and ex-
hort, and renew their license annually ; to admit ministers and preachers
coming from any Associated church ; to recommend ministers and preachers
to the Annual Conference to travel, and for ordination ; to hear and decide
on appeals ; and to perform such other duties as are authorized by this con-
vention. Provided, nevertheless, that no person shall be licensed to preach
until he shall have been first examined, and recommended by a committee of
five, composed of ministers and laymen, chosen by the Quarterly Conference.

PBINCIPLES AND CONSTITUTION 261

Article VII

Composition and Powers of the Annual Conferences

I. There shall be held annually, within the limits of each district, a Con-
ference, to be denominated the Annual Conference, composed of all the
ordained itinerant ministers belonging to the district ; that is, all ministers
properly under the stationing power of the Conference, and of one delegate
from each circuit and station for each of its itinerant ministers, provided,
however, that every circuit and station shall have at least one delegate. Each
Annual Conference shall regulate the manner of elections, in its own dis-
trict ; provided, however, that the election of delegates to the first Annual
Conferences, under this Constitution, shall be according to such regulations
as may be adopted for that purpose by the Quarterly Conferences of the re-
spective circuits and stations.

II. The Annual Conferences, respectively, shall be vested with power to
elect a president, annually ; to examine into the official conduct of all its
members ; to receive by vote, such ministers and preachers into the Confer-
ence as come properly recommended, and who can be efficiently employed as
itinerant preachers, or missionaries ; to elect to orders those who are eligible
and competent to the pastoral office ; to hear and decide on appeals ; to define
and regulate the boundaries of circuits and stations ; to station the ministers,
preachers and missionaries; and to perform such other duties as may be
prescribed by this Convention or the General Conference.

III. To make such rules and regulations as may be necessary to defray
the expenses of the itinerant ministers, preachers, and their families ; to raise
their salaries as fixed by this Convention ; and for all other purposes con-
nected with the organization and continuance of said Conferences.

IV The Annual Conferences, respectively, shall also have authority to
perform the following additional duties : —

1st. To make such special rules and regulations as the peculiarities of the
district may require ; provided, however, that no rule or regulation be made,
inconsistent with this Constitution. And provided, furthermore, that the
General Conference shall have power to annul any rule or regulation which
that body may deem unconstitutional.

2d. To prescribe and regulate the mode of stationing the ministers and
preachers within the district ; provided always, that they grant to each min-
ister or preacher stationed, an appeal, during the sitting of the Conference.

3d. Each Annual Conference shall have exclusive power to make its own
rules and regulations for the admission and government of its colored mem-
bers ; and to make for them such terms of suffrage as the Conferences re-
spectively may deem proper.

But neither the General Conference nor any Annual Conference shall as-
sume powers to interfere with the constitutional powers of the civil govern-
ments or with the operations of the civil laws ; yet nothing herein contained
shall be so construed as to authorize or sanction anything inconsistent with
the morality of the holy scriptures.

Each Annual Conference shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and send
a copy to the General Conference.

262 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

Article VIII

Composition of the General Conference

I. There shall be a General Conference of this Association, on the first
Tuesday in May, in the year of our Lord, 1834, in Georgetown, District of
Columbia ; and on the first Tuesday in May every seventh year thereafter,
in such place as may be determined on by the Conference.

II. The General Conference shall consist of an equal number of Ministers
and Laymen. The ratio of representation from each district shall be one
minister and one layman for every thousand persons in full membership ;
provided, however, that any district which may not have one thousand
members shall be entitled to two representatives, one minister and one
layman, until a different ratio shall have been fixed by the General Confer-
ence.

III. The number of representatives to which each District may be
entitled, shall be elected at the time, and place of holding the Annual Con-
ference of the district, next preceding the sitting of the General Conference,
by the joint ballot of an electoral college, composed of the itinerant ministers
and delegates belonging to the Annual Conference, and of one minister, who
is not under the stationing power of the Conference, provided there be such,
from each circuit and station within the limits of the district. The minister
thus added from each circuit and station shall be elected at the time and
place of holding the Quarterly Conference, by the ministers in his circuit or
station, not under the stationing power of the Annual Conference. Pro-
vided, however, that the delegates from the respective circuits and stations,
be laymen ; and provided also, that it require the affirmative vote of a
majority of all the lay delegates present, as well as a majority of the votes
of all the ministers present, to constitute the election of any representative
to the General Conference.

IV. The General Conference shall elect by ballot, a president to preside
over its deliberations ; and one or more secretaries, to serve during the sit-
ting of the Conference ; shall also judge of election returns, and qualifications
of its own members and form its own rules of order. A majority of all the
representatives in attendance, shall constitute a quorum.

V. The Ministers and laymen shall deliberate in one body ; but if, upon
the final passage of any question, it be required by three members, the Min-
isters and Laymen shall vote separately, and the concurrence of a majority
of both classes of representatives shall be necessary to constitute a vote of
the Conference. — A similar regulation shall be observed by the Annual
Conferences.

VI. The yeas and nays shall be recorded at the call of one-fifth part of
the members present.

VII. The Conference shall publish such parts of the journal of its pro-
ceedings as it may deem requisite.

VIII. All papers, books, &c, belonging to the Conference, shall be
preserved as that body may direct.

PRINCIPLES AND CONSTITUTION 263

Akticxe IX
Powers of the General Conference

I. The General Conference shall have power to make rules and regula-
tions for the Itinerant, Missionary, Literary, and every other department of
the Church, recognized by this Constitution.

II. To fix the compensation and duties of the itinerant ministers and
preachers, and the allowance for their wives, widows and children ; and
also, the compensation and duties of the Book Agent, Editor, &c, and to
devise ways and means for raising funds.

III. To regulate, from time to time, the number of representatives to the
General Conference ; provided, that the General Conference shall at no time
exceed one hundred members.

IV- To define and regulate the boundaries of the respective Annual
Conference districts ; provided, however, that the Annual Conferences of any
two or more districts, shall have power, by mutual agreement, to alter their
respective adjoining boundaries, or to unite and become one district, or to
set off a new district ; to receive into their respective limits and jurisdiction
any station or circuit, which does not belong to some other district ; but
every alteration made in the boundaries of the respective districts shall be
reported to the ensuing General Conference.

Akticxe X
Bestrictions on the Legislative Assemblies

I. No rule shall be passed which shall contravene any law of God.

II. No rule shall be passed which shall infringe the right of suffrage,
eligibility to office, or the rights and privileges of our ministers, preachers,
and members, to an impartial trial by committee, and of an appeal, as
provided by this Constitution.

"' III. No rule shall be passed infringing on the liberty of speech, or of the
press ; but for every abuse of liberty, the offender shall be dealt with as in
other cases of indulging in sinful words and tempers.

IV. No rule, except it be founded on the holy scriptures, shall be passed
authorizing the expulsion of any minister, preacher or member.

V No rule shall be passed appropriating the funds of the Church to any
purpose except the support of the ministry, their wives, widows and chil-
dren ; the promotion of education, and Missions ; the diffusion of useful
knowledge ; the necessary expenses consequent on assembling the Confer-
ences, and the relief of the poor.

VI. No higher order of Ministers shall be authorized than that of Elder.

VII. No rule shall be passed to abolish an efficient itinerant ministry, or
to authorize the Annual Conferences to station their ministers and preachers
longer than three years, successively, in the same circuit, and two years suc-
cessively in the same station.

VIII. No change shall be made in the relative proportions, or component
parts of the General or Annual conferences.

264 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

AllTICXE XI

Officers of the Church

1. The President of each Annual Conference shall be elected annually by
the ballot of a majority of the members of the Conference. He shall not be
eligible more than three years in succession ; and shall be amenable to that
body for his official conduct.

2. It shall be the duty of the President of an Annual Conference to preside
in all meetings of that body ; to travel through the district, and visit all the
circuits and stations, and to be present, as far as practicable, at all the Quar-
terly Meetings and Camp Meetings of his district ; and, in the recess of Con-
ference, with the assistance of two or more elders, to ordain those persons
who may be elected to orders ; to employ such ministers, preachers, and
missionaries, as are duly recommended ; and to make such changes of preach-
ers as may be necessary, provided, the consent of the preachers to be changed,
be first obtained ; and to perform such other duties as may be required by
his Annual Conference.

Ministers

1. The Minister, who shall be appointed by the Annual Conference, to the
charge of a station or circuit, shall be styled the Superintendent, and shall
be amenable to the Annual Conference for his official conduct.

2. The minister or preacher appointed by the Annual Conference to assist
the superintendent in the discharge of his pastoral duties, shall be styled the
Assistant ; and shall be amenable to the Annual Conference for the faithful
discharge of duty.

3. It shall be the duty of every minister and preacher belonging to a cir-
cuit or station, to render all the pastoral assistance he can, consistently with
his other engagements ; but no minister or preacher shall be accountable to
the Annual Conference for the discharge of ministerial duty, except he be
an itinerant minister or preacher ; all others shall be accountable to the Quar-
terly Conference of their circuit or station.

4. No person shall be recognized as an itinerant minister, preacher or
missionary, whose name is not enrolled on the Annual Conference list, or
who will not be subject to the order of the Conference.

Glass Leaders

The class leaders may be elected annually by the members of their re-
spective Classes ; but if, in any instance, a class shall neglect or refuse to
elect a leader, when one is wanted, it shall then be the duty of the superin-
tendent to nominate a class leader for said class, and from the nomination
or nominations made by the superintendent, the class shall make an election.

Conference Stewards

The Conference steward shall be elected annually by the Annual Confer-
ence, and discharge those duties assigned him by the discipline, and be amen-
able to the Annual Conference for his official conduct.

PRINCIPLES AND CONSTITUTION 265

Station and Circuit Stewards

1. The station and Circuit Stewards shall be elected annually ; in the
stations, by the male members, including ministers and preachers ; and in
the Circuits, by the Quarterly Conference ; but every qualified male mem-
ber, if present, shall be permitted to vote in the elections of Circuit Stewards.
The number of Stewards for each Circuit or Station to be not less than three,
nor more than seven.

Article XII
Suffrage and Eligibility to office

I. Every Minister and Preacher, and every white, lay, male Member, in
full communion and fellowship, having attained to the age of twenty-one
years, shall be entitled to vote in all cases.

II. Every Minister and Preacher, and every white, lay, male Member, in
full communion and fellowship, having attained to the age of twenty-five
years, and having been in full membership two years, shall be eligible as a
representative to the General Conference.

III. No person shall be eligible as a delegate to the Annual Conference,
or as a steward, until he shall have attained to the age of twenty-one years,
and who is not a regular communicant of this Church.

IV No Minister shall be eligible to the office of President of an Annual
Conference, until he shall have faithfully exercised the office of elder two
years.

Article XIII

Judiciary Principles

I. All offences condemned by the word of God, as being sufficient to
exclude a person from the kingdom of grace and glory, shall subject Minis-
ters, Preachers and Members, to expulsion from the Church.

II. The neglect of duties required by the word of God, or the indulgence
in sinful words and tempers, shall subject the offender to admonition ; and
if persisted in, after repeated admonitions, to expulsion.

III. For preaching or disseminating unscriptural doctrines affecting the
essential interests of the Christian system, Ministers, Preachers, and Mem-
bers shall be liable to admonition ; and, if incorrigible, to expulsion : Pro-
vided, always, that no Minister, Preacher or Member, shall be expelled for
disseminating matters of opinion alone, except they be such as are condemned
by the word of God.

IV. All officers of the Church shall be liable to removal from office, for
mal-administration.

Article XIV

Privileges of accused Ministers and Members

I. In all cases of accusation against a Minister, Preacher, or Member,
the accused shall be furnished by the proper authorities, with a copy of the
charges and specifications, at least twenty days before the time appointed
for the trial ; unless the parties concerned prefer going into trial on shorter

266 niSTOBY OF METHODIST REFORM

notice. The accused shall have the right of challenge ; the privilege of
examining witnesses at the time of trial ; and of making his defence in per-
son or by representative ; provided such representative be a member of the
Church.

II. No Minister or Preacher, shall be expelled, or deprived of Church
privileges, or ministerial functions, without an impartial trial before a com-
mittee, of from three to five ministers or preachers, and the right of appeal ;
the preachers to the ensuing Quarterly Conference ; the ministers to the
ensuing Annual Conference.

III. No Member shall be expelled or deprived of church privileges, with-
out an impartial trial before a Committee of three or more lay members, or
before the Society of which he is a member, as the accused may require,
and the right of an appeal to the ensuing Quarterly Conference; but no
Committee man who shall have sat on the first trial, shall sit on the appeal ;
and all appeals shall be final.

Article XV

Discipline Judiciary

I. Whenever a majority of all the Annual Conferences shall officially call
for a judicial decision on any rule or act of the General Conference, it shall
be the duty of each and every Annual Conference to appoint at its next ses-
sion, one Judicial delegate, having the same qualifications of eligibility as
are required for a representative to the General Conference. The delegates
thus chosen, shall assemble at the place where the General Conference held
its last session, on the second Tuesday in May following their appointment.

II. A majority of the delegates shall constitute a quorum ; and if two-
thirds of all present, judge said rule or act of the General Conference uncon-
stitutional, they shall have power to declare the same null and void.

III. Every decision of the Judiciary shall be in writing, and shall be pub-
lished in the periodical belonging to this Church. After the Judiciary shall
have performed the duties assigned them by this Constitution, their powers
shall cease ; and no other judiciary shall be created until after the session of
the succeeding General Conference.

Article XVI
Special Call of the. General Conference

I. Two-thirds of the whole number of the Annual Conferences shall have
power to call special meetings of the General Conference.

II. When it shall have been ascertained, that two-thirds of the Annual
Conferences have decided in favour of such call, it shall be the duty of the
Presidents, or a majority of them, forthwith, to designate the time and place
of holding the same, and to give due notice to all the stations and circuits.

Article XVII

Provision for altering the Constittition

I. The General Conference shall have power to amend any part of this
Constitution, except the second, tenth and fourteenth articles, by making

OTHER DRAFTS CONSIDERED 267

such alterations or additions, as may be recommended in writing, by two-
thirds of the whole number of the Annual Conferences next preceding the
sitting of the General Conference.

II. The second, tenth and fourteenth articles of this Constitution shall be
unalterable, except by a General Convention, called for the special purpose,
by two-thirds of the whole number of the Annual Conferences next preceding
the General Conference. Which Convention, and all other Conventions of
this Church, shall be constituted and elected in the same manner and ratio,
as prescribed for the General Conference. When a General Convention is
called by the Annual Conferences, it shall supersede the assembling of the
General Conference for that period ; and shall have power to discharge all
the duties of that body, in addition to the particular object for which the
Convention shall have been assembled.

Besolved, That the Judiciary tribunal provided for by the 15th article of
the Constitution of this Church, shall publish as well the reasons of their
opinion upon the part or provision of the Constitution supposed to have
been contravened by the law, or laws, provision or provisions, considered to
be unconstitutional, together with their decision.

Whereas, It is declared by this Convention, that whatever power may be
necessary to the formation of rules and regulations, is inherent in the min-
isters and members of the Church ; and that so much of that power may be
delegated from time to time, upon a plan of representation as they may
judge proper ; therefore, Kesolved, that all power not delegated to the respec-
tive official bodies of the Methodist Protestant Church by this Convention,
are retained to said ministers and members.

Baltimore, Nov. 20, 1830.

William S. Stockton had prepared and presented a draft of a
Constitution, which Williams has preserved bound up with the
original draft finally adopted, and as a substitute for it. It ex-
hibits the centrifugal sentiments of the author, and also largely
represented the views of Snethen and others who stood for the
wider liberty of societies, annual conferences, and against re-
strictive regulations of almost every kind. The instrument is
one of much intrinsic worth and ability. Gideon Davis also pre-
sented parts of an instrument, and others made fundamental sug-
gestions. All the papers were referred to a committee of twelve,
one from each Conference in the Convention, who reported back,
that they recommend the draft of the committee of the Conven-
tion of 1828, to be made the basis of legislation. This draft,
as can be seen, exhibited the centripetal sentiment of Shinn,
McCaine, and Williams, with the quiet but influential support
of Dr. Francis Waters. It is in the chirography of Williams, the
chairman of the committee, and his sober and judicious views

268 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

dominated a majority of the Convention. Its order is followed,
and but few essential modifications were made in it. The same
committee formulated a Discipline to accord with their constitu-
tional work, but it need not be considered in this History.1 It
was more radically dissected by the Convention before adoption.
While it might be historically interesting to give conventional
details, the limits of this work forbid; but some things ought not
to pass into oblivion. Dr. John French, from the numerous times
he was called to the chair in the absence of the President, as well
as the sedate but prevailing part he took in the proceedings, re-
ceived high compliment from his associates. Dr. Jennings was
of the original committee, and being resident in Baltimore with
Williams, his vigorous pen cannot be concealed in the composition
of the draft. Dr. Finney made the motion adopting " Elementary
Principles" as a title instead of "Bill of Bights." These prin-
ciples are plain to-day, except, perhaps, the eleventh, deemed
one of the most essential at the time as a precaution against
legislative assumptions, which was its intent, so little used were
even these brethren to the safeguards of a Constitution. They
could not forget the arrogations of the past, when bishops made
laws, — "independent sovereignties," — and then had them rati-
fied by subservient Conferences. Gideon Davis thought the
wording obscure, if not misleading, and moved to substitute
" sovereignties " with " authorities," but it did not prevail.2 The
style and title of the Church has the history that W. W. Wallace
moved it be denominated "The Beformed Methodist Church."
Subsequently Asa Shinn moved that it be "The Bepresenta-

i "Constitution and Discipline of the Methodist Protestant Church." Balti-
more : published for the Book Committee of the Methodist Protestant Church by
John J. Harrod, Book Agent of the M. P. Church. William Woody, printer, 1830.
24mo. 160 pp. Half sheep.

The inquiring reader can get access to this book for all the details of the con-
ventional action. It also contains the address ordered by the Convention to the
Ministers and Members, understood to be from the graceful pen of Dr. Francis
Waters, and appended to the "Discipline" for many years thereafter. The
"Discipline for 1834" also contains, as an appendix, Bascom's "Summary of
Rights."

2 The meaning of the article will be made plain with the statement that any
act of an Annual Conference in contravention of the Constitution, or an act of
the General Conference or of a Quarterly Conference in contravention of the
Annual Conference, etc., would be violative of the article. Ideally and practi-
cally it is the strongest connectional bond in the Constitution, and has often in cur-
rent history, been employed to arrest incipient revolution. While " Associated
Churches," they are also " The Methodist Protestant Church," and under its con-
stitution there has been as little friction and loss as perhaps under any similar
instrument ever adopted by Church or State.

SNETHEN ON "CHURCH VS. CHURCHES" 269

tive Methodist Church, comprising the Associated Methodist
Churches." W- S. Stockton's draft had proposed "The Asso-
ciated Methodist Churches," and so the committee, in accordance
with Snethen's favorite idea. While the question was under dis-
cussion in the Convention, Dr. Waters left the chair and advocated
the title "The Methodist Protestant Church." On motion of
Charles Avery the word Protestant was substituted for Repre-
sentative, and carried without opposition. Dr. Waters late in
life asserted that he proposed the word Protestant in its broad
ecclesiastical sense.

The implications of this decision merit space for historical
preservation. Snethen in nothing more conspicuously exhibited
his far-reaching as well as retrospective philosophy, and accurate
knowledge of New Testament principles and precedents, than in
his pronounced objection to a " Church " in the sense indivisible,
as set over against "churches" in the sense confederate. As
early as 1822-23, before a new Church was conceived of as a pos-
sibility of Eeform measures within the extant Methodism, he
averred: "Almost all the conclusions which were thus forced
upon me by this E"ew Testament research were then like so many
original discoveries, especially the following; viz., that the primi-
tive churches were confederate and not indivisible, like the modern
episcopal hierarchies. This conclusion you will perceive could
not have been admitted by me, had not my mind been so far
unfettered as to call no man master. In all these points I may
be mistaken; but if I am not, the consequence is unavoidable,
and ought to alarm our church hierarchy men exceedingly." And
he wrought out the idea in the modification he proposed of the
old regime : " The first thing, then, that would probably result
from a lay-delegation, would be the establishment and security
of individual church identity; the second step would be to main-
tain and perpetuate a confederate union among these identified
churches ; and a third a modification and accommodation of the
travelling plan, bishops' power, etc., to this state of things upon
a basis of ministerial identity, so that every preacher might say
that his soul was his own. All this it is evident would be a work
of time and great labor. In such an event no General Conference
must attempt to limit its successors; . . . the only insurmount-
able difficulty would be the name, for 'Episcopal Church,' not
churches, under all changes; . . . this badge of our original sin,
like our mortal bodies, can only be put off with our death. From
the beginning we ought to have been confederated churches, and

270 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

our name ought to have answered to our nature." Eecurring to
apostolical times, he said: "Why this difference between the
apostles and our system-makers, who not only fill out their plan
to the utmost minutiae, but so provide against all changes and
improvements as to render everything from a thread to a shoe-
latchet immutable? Was there not as great a danger of latitudi-
narianism and innovation in the days of the apostles as now?
Why then, I ask again, did they preserve such a seeming guarded
silence upon the details of Church government? Was it not be-
cause they looked forward to consequences, and foresaw that no
model could be given which would not be susceptible of abuse or
perversion? " A half a century later Rev. Dr. Augustus Webster,
with much of the same wisdom, gave to the writer in conversation
another reason for the absence of a plan in the New Testament
church polity. He said in substance : " The early Christians had
no need to be governed, because the law of love by which they
were controlled made every man a law unto himself. It was
only as this law of love died out of their hearts that a system
making for control was introduced, and the hierarchy grew apace."
Could anything be more true and apposite? To the same purpose
Snethen, in 1825, wrote : " When the Lord Jesus Christ ascended
into heaven, he sent the Comforter, the spirit of truth, to supply
the place of his personal presence ; but left no one of his disciples
to occupy his place and to govern the rest. All his offices are
perpetual and unchangeable, and of course cannot be held or rep-
resented in this world by a succession of mortal men. To keep
up a succession of mortal heads over the church, a spirit of fear
must be kept up in the church. Why these names, these titles,
these offices, these powers and prerogatives? Not surely to
inspire love, but fear."

It is the difference between the rule of Christ in his churches
and the rule of Ecclesiasticism. Eccelesiasticism had its birth
with the first aggregation of force as a supplement to love for
controlling Christian men, and to control Christian men is the
confessed purpose of the Church as it crystallized in Rome, and
in every outshoot of it. The clear vision of Snethen took it all
in, and for this almost divine reason his preference was not to
add another " Church " to the aggregations of force in the denomi-
nationalisms called Christian . Force cannot be made an auxiliary
to love and not be liable to abuse ; and ecclesiastical history from
the coming of anti-christ at the close of the apostolic age is a
succession of evidence that in every instance it was abused, and

CONFEDERATION VS. CONNECTIONALISM 271

is abused to the present day. At least in this every one must
agree with the astute Snethen in a final word upon the subject :
" It is much to be regretted that not a few of the Protestants, and
of the denominations which have sprung from the Protestants,
have shown so great a propensity to make the power of ministers
of the gospel to govern the Church, that is, legislate its laws, as
well as execute them, a foundation truth."

The framers of the Constitution of the Methodist Protestant
Church gave heed to this warning of Snethen, but were not con-
trolled by it. Confederation was accepted as the true bond, but
it was incorporated with features of Connectionalism in the con-
viction that indivisibility could only be preserved that way. It
was a compromise, in some things, perhaps, for the highest
efficiency and provision for the demands of a future, conceding
too much, and in some others conceding not enough in view of
the same demands. Even Snethen, however, came to acknowl-
edge that it was as near an approach to the New Testament model
as was possible, in that nearly ten years later, when the experi-
ment of a new Church was a demonstrated success, he wrote " The
Identifier," * in which the comparison of its principles is success-
fully run with the apostolic methods and principles. Glancing
over it as my pen flows, it is found rich in check-marks for quo-
tation in this work, but space forbids. Suffice it to say that it is
a mellow and powerful vindication both of his own views and of
the new Methodism. Read it and observe how much wiser he
was in his generation than the leaders of either the old or the
new regime.

Protestant denominationalism in every form of it, as hinted,
is simply an aggregation of force, and its kinship with the Romish
hierarchy is in the ratio of unlimited prescriptive right of the
clergy to rule ; and while, as such a force, it may be used to sup-
plement and potentialize the law of love of the primitive churches,

1 " The Identifier of the Ministers and Members of the Methodist Protestant
Church," by Rev. Nicholas Snethen. Philadelphia : Printed for Book Committee
of the Methodist Protestant Church. 1839. 12mo. 107 pp. Cloth. Price, 75 cents.

The writer possesses two well-preserved copies, but the work is now rare. It
is worthy of republication by the Church as a mine of ecclesiastical wisdom.
Those who would understand the philosophy of the Methodist Reformation will
not fail to consult it. While Asa Shinn was incomparably the dialectician of it,
Nicholas Snethen was its bright particular star of intellectual cleverness and phi-
losophy. It won for him the designation of a theorist by such matter-of-fact
minds as Williams and McCaine, but while they were men for the times, Snethen
was a man for all times, so broad was the sweep of his mental horizon and so
horoscopic his seer-like wisdom.

272 HISTORY OF METHODIST BEFOBM

the trend of its practical working is dominion over conscience
and the proscription of personal liberty. And in the measure of
this aggregation of force is the numerical and material success of
a denomination, but it is gained by a necessary departure from
the law of love as the only evangelistical force recognized by
Christ as dominating his earthly kingdom. The ready answer
of those who participate in hierarchic administration is that any
other method in its ideal is visionary, Utopian, as a working
hypothesis, that is, it cannot be made to control men. The
proposition is denied as applied to Christian men, and it libels
the Christly postulate : " One is your Master, even Christ, and
all ye are brethren," as well as the precedents and methods of
the first-century Christians so as to deny the potency of love as
the essence of law. The very tap-root of ecclesiasticism is the
dominion of force. It was and is against this principle that the
New Methodism stood and now stands as a Protest. Its method
is unhesitatingly declared a success as the nearest approach yet
made to the New Testament ideal of this law of love, and it is
the objective of this History to demonstrate this success. The
nature of its ideal, its shortcomings, while endeavoring to con-
serve a connectional form as well, must be delayed for treatment
to a more apposite period in its ecclesiastical career.1

i How pointedly are these general views enforced and illustrated by the author-
ities following. Wesley in his Notes, commenting on Acts ii. 45, says: " It was a
natural fruit of that love wherewith each member of the community loved every
other as his own soul. And if the whole Christian church had continued in this
spirit, this usage must have continued through all ages. To affirm, therefore,
that Christ did not design it should continue is neither more nor less than to affirm
that Christ did not design this measure of love should continue. I see no evidence
of this." And the great modern apostle of civil reform on Christian principles,
Rev. Dr. Parkhurst of New York City, speaking of this primitive law of love as
the basic principle of government in the apostolical church as contradistinguished
from the law of denominationalism, pertinently says: " The instant a Christian
ceases to become bound up in his Divine Lord his regards begin to settle back in the
channel of his own individual proclivities ; and that is the genius of denomination-
alism. Denominationalism is made up, not of the essence, but of the accidents
of Christianity. A denomination is another name for some strand of personal
eccentricity selected from each of a number of counterparts and tied up into one
bundle. This makes the Protestant Episcopal, the Methodist Episcopal, the

Presbyterian, the Baptist, and other denominations. It is the genius of the

entire performance then and always." But we must have a strong government
or you cannot control men, says the hierarchist. True, when Christians cease
to be amenable to the law of love, then they must be controlled by force ; but the
moment this is made a factor they cease to be Christians, and are mere partisans,
bigots, Romanists, or Episcopalians, and what not. So if you want a strong con-
trol of men, not as Christians but as men, a following under the slogan call of a.
denomination, nowhere is the ideal so perfect as in Romish or other Episcopal

HISTOBY OF CERTAIN "■ARTICLES''' 273

Article VII. was wrought out in much mental travail. While
the sixth Elementary Principle was made to declare that "all
elders in the Church of God are equal," the sober sense of the
Convention restricted membership in the Annual Conference to
itinerant ministers and preachers under the stationing authority
of it, thus sweeping away a favorite contention of the locality,
which, if it had never been sprung in the controversy, would
have secured the continued cooperation of Ezekiel Cooper, and
the strong Philadelphia Conference backing he carried with him,
for Eeform. The contention "was one of the misadventures of
early Reform. Pertinaciously adhered to until much damage was
wrought to the common cause, it was swept away by returning rea-
son, but too late to repair that damage. And while it was also
declared in Section 6th of Article X., that "No higher order of
ministers shall be authorized than that of elder," as a protection
against a bishopric in the ascending grade of a hierarchy, they
overlooked entirely the descending grade, and by sufferance con-
tinued a diaconate as an order of the ministry, though it was
manifestly an invention of the hierarchy. Some forty years later
this inconsistency was remedied by expunging the order from the
Discipline and ordination service.1

forms of polity. And never were truer words than those recently uttered by the
Church Standard anent the union its Church is urging on the basis of the His-
toric Episcopate, and other Methodisms may take warning in the application
made by it : " The very form of an episcopate, even though it be not the Historic
Episcopate, has a marvellously uniting power. Thus in the American Methodist
Episcopal Church there is a unity almost unknown in any other denomination, and
strange to say there is an intensity of denominational individuality which makes
the Methodist Episcopal Church the least likely of all American Christian bodies
to entertain any overtures whatever looking towards a union with any other
body." Hence its recent opposition officially declared against the Christian
Endeavor Society as an inter-denominational organization within the respective
churches and loyal to each church. Its young people must be organized on
an exclusively denominational basis, which means in fact by this confession :
that they must be taught to be Methodists even more than to be Christians.
What then must be the meaning of all their professed offers of union with other
Methodisms, even that of the Methodist Church, North to that of the South ? It
never has had, and never will have, as officially understood by that Church, any
other meaning than a willingness to absorb any and all coming within its influence.
It is an anaconda that swallows everything, but never disgorges anything. Union !
The very genius of the system forbids it with any other form of Christianity, even
the kindred Methodist branches, and they are not wise who are deceived by the
cry of Union !

1 From the beginning of Wesley's ordinations in England, except the " setting
apart " of Mather for Scotland as a " superintendent " (no conception of a bishop-
ric entering his mind by the act, or a third order) , and jealously conserved to this
day in all the branches of English Methodism, there is but one order, Elders. That
he never intended a third order in America by anything he did as " setting apart "

VOL. II — T

274 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

In nothing was the compromising trend of the Convention ex-
hibited more than in the third section of Article VII., under con-
sideration. " Each Annual Conference shall have exclusive power
to make its own rules and regulations for the admission of colored
members within its district, and to make for them such terms of
suffrage as the Conferences respectively may deem proper." It
was a concession from the South to the North on the vexed
question of slavery. " But neither the General Conference nor
any Annual Conference shall assume power to interfere with the
constitutional powers of the civil government, or with the opera-
tions of the civil laws." This was a concession of the North to
the South ; even such antislavery representatives as Judge P. B.
Hopper of Maryland, who had given proof of his sentiments by
manumitting some forty slaves, nearly his entire patrimony by
inheritance, recognized a judicial necessity for some such action.
It was finally carried by a vote of forty-eight to sixteen, W. S.
Stockton securing this addition to the section: "Yet nothing
herein contained shall be so construed as to authorize or sanction
anything inconsistent with the morality of the^Holy Scriptures."
It secured for the whole section a number of votes from anti-
slavery representatives besides Judge Hopper. But for its impli-
cations of slavery no one, perhaps, would have made opposition
to it, and since the issue passed away it has remained in the Con-
stitution as legislation defining separation of the Church and
State.

Article VII. made the General Conference meet in 1834 and
"every seventh year thereafter." It was favored by Shinn and
others, but after that of 1834 he grew so thoroughly changed in
opinion that his efforts secured concurrence of two-thirds of the
Annual Conferences, and the ensuing General Conference met in
1838. The seventh Restriction of Article X., on the Itinerancy,

Dr. Coke as a superintendent (he averred that he did nothing more in that case
than in the Mather case) is so plain from the cumulation of proofs contained
in this History as to place it past controversion by honest Methodists ; and yet,
if we may believe Dr. Coke, he sent over with the abridged prayer book for the
use of the American Methodists, intending only by the enjoinment of this Ritual
to assert his own headship and authority over them, as an appendix the forms of a
three-order ordination as it obtained in the Established Church of England. While
there is no extant evidence on either side, it is reasonably conjectural that not
Wesley, but Dr. Coke, appended the ordination forms to the abridged prayer book
of 1784. It is at least compatible with Dr. Coke's well-known preferences for an
Episcopal form of government. That he was capable of such an addition is clear
from his whole procedure with Asbury in organizing an Episcopal Church. It also
redeems Wesley from an inconsistency which cannot otherwise be removed.

ARTICLE XII. ON SUFFRAGE 275

filled the term in stations at two years, on motion of McCaine,
and two on circuits, but already this hard-and-fast feature had
its opponents, and they prevailed finally so as to insert three for
two on circuits. It was one of the things of which Snethen said
in his " Identifier " : " To be like the old Church in means and
ends, whether we could or not, has engrossed our genius and our
energy. Undoubtedly a less rigid rule would have been used to
the damage of the new Church by their well-wishing friends of
the old. It was the fear of it that tied the hands of the new-
born child. The light of experience has shown that it was an
error to make the regulation unalterable except by a majority of
two-thirds of all the Annual Conferences. It resulted practically
in its unavoidable evasion in some of the outlying Conferences,
and of not a little local damage in Maryland and elsewhere before
stubborn resistance to any innovation could be overcome and the
present flexible law of the Church took its place. The older
Methodism, still slower in ponderous and restricting machinery,
has extended the time to five years, and the end is not yet.

Article XII., on Suffrage and Eligibility to Office, was framed
to read, "Every minister and every preacher and every white
lay-member . . . shall be entitled to vote in all cases," and the
same form repeated as to eligibility to "General Conference."
It was a narrow ethnic enactment. It must, however, be con-
ceded as historically true that it was not aimed at the colored
man, only as it was originally suggested by the conduct of Pre-
siding Elder Frye, in the expulsion of the Eeformers of 1827-28,
already fully gone over in this volume. It was found that two
witnesses who were present, W. S. Lipscomb of the South and
George Brown of the West, agreed that it was incorporated to fore-
stall the possibility of a recurrence of such a procedure. This
view is also sustained by the fact, as the minutes show, that it
was offered by James K. Williams, than whom there was no more
pronounced antislavery man living in a slave State. It was he
who answered McCaine's pamphlet issued in 1842 defensive of
American domestic slavery. If farther evidence were wanting,
it is supplied by the fact that this article was not reached until
some time after Article VII. had been passed, which settled the
status of the Church as to the slavery question. And yet farther
than that there seems to have been none of the contention over it
there was over Article VII. Yet these facts make it all the more
remarkable. Legally, as framed, it cannot be made to cover
ministers and preachers. It does not say, every white minister

276 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

and preacher, but "every white lay-member." This legal loop-
hole was not probably intended, but, if so, did the representatives
think that the time would not come when the Church would ordain
colored men? They certainly had no foreign missionary pros-
pects, for how, as for years past, could our Constitution have
gone to Japan or any other country not inhabited by " white "
people? It must be repeated, it was a narrow ethnic enactment,
and nothing but evil ever came of it.

A non-action of the Convention has been a moot to this day
and always must remain such. Were the Articles of Keligion,
as contained in the Book and taken from the old Book, and Wes-
ley's General Rules, formally adopted by the Convention? The
evidence of the minutes is that Aaron G. Brewer made a motion
to this effect, but it was laid over. Subsequently the question
was divided, and the General Rules adopted. The question as
to the Articles of Religion came up again and again, but was
always deferred, until, at the heel of the adjournment, there
seems to have been some informal agreement that the committee
on publication should complete Convention work in this and some
other matters. It appears to have been crowded over. Snethen
and Shinn, it is alleged, were opposed to legislation on a Creed,1
and their views were probably shared by others, but the minutes
do not exhibit any definite objection by the representatives.
The original draft of the Constitution made provision for it in
the sixth section of Article X., among the Restrictive Rules:
" Nor shall any alteration or additions be made in the religious
principles adopted by this Convention." This member of the

1 Rev. Dr. D. S. Stephens in 1880-1884 issued three ably compiled and written
pamphlets on " Views of the Reformers," and a " Defense " of the same, in which
the negative of the binding effect of these Articles is taken in controversion of a
note appended to them by the General Conference of 1880, making them obligatory
as teaching authority. A vast amount of material is here brought together witli
painstaking accuracy, and those who would see what can be said for the widest
liberty of private judgment in matters of faith and doctrine are referred to them.
These Articles of Religion formed a part of Wesley's abridged Prayer Book of
1784 for the American Methodists. He excised sections, etc., but did not formu-
late the distinctive doctrines he preached as set forth in his Sermons and Notes on
the New Testament, so that they mean but little as expressions of Methodist doc-
trine. Out of the controversy engendered by the action of 1880, based upon alleged
loose doctrinal teaching in the northwestern section, grew an attempt on the part
of the writer to secure such a formulation of Methodist doctrine, and a committee
was authorized by the General Conference of 1888 to perform this labor. But
opposition arose to any such amendment to the Articles, and the work of the com-
mittee was laid over, and has so continued as " unfinished business " not soon
probably to be revived. The General Conference of 1896 " indefinitely postponed "
the whole matter. See " Minutes," p. 54.

"ARTICLES OF RELIGION " — ADOPTED ? 211

section was not adopted. When the Constitution and Disci-
pline of 1830 appeared in book form, the Articles of Religion
were in it as now, except as since verbally amended by the Union
Convention of 1877. The authority for it was explained by
James R. Williams of the publishing committee as found in that
alleged understanding of the Convention. Brewer, however, who
made the first motion as to the matter, positively objected to the
explanation as sufficient authority. The question was revived in
the General Conference of 1834, but that Conference refused to
disturb their position in the Book, and so the matter stands to-day.
It is significant of the intention of the Convention to have passed
upon the Articles of Beligion in that during their consideration
Cornelius Springer moved to amend the twenty-fifth, by inserting
after the words "may swear" the words "or affirm," which was
carried.

A few other items non-concurred in must be noticed. Dr. Jen-
nings, as leader of the locality in the Convention, endeavoring to
circumvent their defeat in the constitution of Annual Conferences,
offered an addition to the Article in these words : " Any minister
of the Methodist Protestant Church not properly itinerant, hav-
ing satisfactory gifts and qualifications for usefulness to the
Church, who shall report himself to the Annual Conference as
willing to be accountable to that body for his official conduct,
and labor regularly and gratuitously in concert with the plan of
the circuit or station within the bounds of which he may reside,
upon a vote of the Conference in his favor shall be admitted to a
seat, and his name shall be enrolled as a member of the Confer-
ence." The yeas and nays were called, and it was defeated by a
vote of twenty-nine to fourteen, French of the itinerants voting
for it, and Avery, Waters, and Williams of the locality voting
against it. Subsequently, Zollickoffer, Bromley, Burgess, Budd,
and Richardson entered a protest against the exclusion of the
locality from membership in the Annual Conference. The salvo
they received was a recognition in Article VIII., making one
minister who is "not under the stationing authority" from each
circuit and station members of the Electoral College; and, by a
legal fiction classing them with the laity, they were at the will
of the Annual Conference elected as representatives, and this
courtesy for a number of years was allowed in the Maryland and
other Conferences. It has passed into desuetude.1

1 A representative official of the Church has recently characterized the provi-
sion for an Electoral College regulating the matter of suffrage for representatives

278 HISTOBY OF METHODIST REFORM

J. J. Harrod made an effort to secure under very strict limita-
tions a General Superintendency, but it was laid on the table on
his own motion and not thereafter referred to.

Harrod's hymn book was adopted until the next General Con-
ference. He was appointed Book Agent and publisher. The
name of the periodical now under the direct control of the General
Conference was The Mutual Bights and Methodist Protestant. A
Book Committee was elected by the Convention : Francis Waters,
James B. Williams, Samuel K. Jennings, John Chappell, Jr.,
and John H. Kennard. A committee to nominate for Editor re-
ported the names of William S. Stockton, John S. Beese, Dennis
B. Dorsey, and Cornelius Springer. All withdrew save William
S. Stockton, who was duly elected in his absence. The periodical
and publishing house were located in Baltimore. A committee
to prepare an Address to be appended to the Discipline was
appointed. Such an Address appears, reputed to have been
written by Dr. Francis Waters, and was retained for a series of
years. The Book Committee was authorized to prepare a Preface
to the book of Discipline. The Convention adjourned with prayer
by Asa Shinn. Signed, Francis Waters, President; George
Brown, Secretary pro tern.

to the General Conference as " nonsense." A careful examination of the reasons
for it and the safeguards it provides demonstrates that no wiser measure ever was
incorporated in the church law. The declaration was probably a passing impulse
— it could not have been a mature judgment. A full history of it is given by J. J.
Harrod in the Methodist Protestant of March 15, 1851, as also recently justified
for its wisdom by Rev. Dr. J. J. Murray. Gideon Davis was the author of it.

CHAPTER XVI

Hierarchic denominations aggregations of force ; the Constitution of the New
Church made it an aggregation of consent ; it must prove its right to exist —
The Methodist Correspondent established at Cincinnati — The Church growing ;
yearly increase from fifty to one hundred per cent ; statistics — Bascom still
writing under pseudonyms — New facts as to Eev. William Burke, a pioneer of
Methodism — Gamaliel Bailey editor of the Baltimore paper — General pros-
perity of the new organization in every direction — Bascom invited to unite
openly with the new Church ; his certified answer ; want of support — Second
volume of Methodist Protestant ; digest of contents — Pastoral Address of the
General Conference of the old Church slanderously attacks the new Church ; it
destroyed the last hope waiting Reformers entertained of change of polity —
Second volume of Methodist Protestant — The Methodist Correspondent re-
moved to Pittsburgh with Rev. Cornelius Springer, editor — Third volume of
Methodist Protestant; digest of its news — The Correspondent removed to
Zanesville under Springer — Abolitionism organizes — Secession in Charleston,
S. C. — New series of Methodist Protestant June 11, 1834.

Thus a new Church was made a necessity in American Metho-
dism. It had as its distinctive peculiarity the representative
principle. Denominationally it was another aggregation, but
instead of one of force it was one of consent. As the old mon-
archies of Europe scouted the idea that a republic could, with the
same representative principle, vitally cohere in America, so the
new Constitution of the Methodist Protestant Church was held
up to animadversion as a rope of sand : the sentiment had been
ingrained that Christian men can be governed only by force, at
least as Methodists. Representation was not, however, a new
thing in English Methodism. The Primitive Methodists, with a
double representation of the laity as against the ministry, had
been organized by the same kind of necessity; and it not only
cohered, but succeeded beyond the Wesleyan body, as was ex-
hibited in the first volume. Not only so, the New Connexion
Methodists, out of an earlier like necessity, with an equal repre-
sentation, proved its right to exist, cohere, and prosper, to this
day, on a high plane of piety and culture, as has also been exhib-
ited in the first volume. But these bright precedent examples
were rarely ever even mentioned in the literature of the Metho-
dist Episcopal Church ; and it is an unaccountable fact that the

279

280 HISTORY OF METHODIST BEFORM

Beformers of 1827-30 make no use of these examples J in their
arguments, as could have been done with unanswerable effect.
It remained for the Methodist Protestant Church, as an aggrega-
tion of consent, to prove its right to exist and prosper. The
course of its history shall now be traced as its quadrenniums pass
before me.

The Eeformers of the West, in the autumn of 1830, felt that
the cause must have a periodical among them, and so associated
themselves for this purpose. November 1 the first number of
the Methodist Correspondent appeared.2 It was an eight-page
quarto, bi-monthly, edited and published by Eev. Moses M.
Henkle, in Cincinnati, O., at one dollar a year. It was ably
conducted, with Shinn, Bascom, Snethen, Springer, Brown, and
other leading writers as frequent contributors. It was under the
patronage and auspices of the Ohio Conference, which now in-
cluded the whole territory west of the Alleghanies. It gives in
full the minutes of the second Conference, held September 2,
1830, in Cincinnati, with eighty-five ordained ministers, two-
thirds of whom were local, and fifty lay-delegates. The mem-
bership was reported at 3791, a net gain of 1765, or nearly one
hundred per cent for the year. It published the Constitution
of the Church, and Bascom's "Declaration of Rights," anony-
mously, as he had not withdrawn from the old Church. The
series of articles from his pen, running through the whole of the
first volume under the pseudonym "Paul," with the title "Paul
on the Ministry," attracted wide attention for their ability and
defence of the principles of Eeformers as to ministerial parity.
It was the last consecutive literary work he performed in the
direct interest of the new Church. The editor was intimate with
him; afterward became his biographer, and in it admits the
authorship of these articles. Bascom was never known to retract
any argument or principle advocated in them. The Itinerant
characterized it as "a new Eadical paper," and pathetically called
on its correspondents to furnish evidence from "those districts

1 A solitary exception is found in the Address of the Convention of 1827 to the
general Methodist Church — the representative principle among the English Ee-
formers is cited casually.

2 The six volumes of the Methodist Correspondent, bound up in two, now be-
fore the writer, are from the Bassett Deposit at Adrian College, loaned by the
authorities. The last number was issued November 5, 1836. They are indispen-
sable to a right understanding of Reform in the West, and have been carefully
read and freely used in the composition of this History. It is perhaps the only
perfect file of it in existence.

REV. WILLIAM BURKE— NEW FACTS 281

infected with the plague of radicalism " to support Dr. Bond's
averment: "Reform is dead; let its ashes rest in peace." The
unprecedented increase of one hundred per cent in the West
was the evidence, mostly conversions. It notes the demise of
Eev. Evert Eichman, August 19, 1830, one of the truest local
Reformers from the old Church. It supplies a brief chapter in
the history of Rev. William Burke, one of the brave and devoted
pioneers of Methodism in the West, which Dr. Stevens does not
include in his panegyrics of him.1

A Preachers' Aid Society was organized early in 1830 to sup-
plement salaries of itinerants for the Ohio Conference, location
Cincinnati. A number of successful camp-meetings were held
during the summer of 1830. To these and other meetings the
old side ministers were invited, but they never reciprocated — it
would have smirched them with " Radicalism " ; they durst not if
inclined. A seminary was projected thus early for the West;
and afterward materialized, with Snethen as its head. Shinn
republished, in Cincinnati, a second edition of "An Essay on
the Plan of Salvation," first issued in Baltimore, in 1813, revised
and extended. It is a masterful and unanswerable argument for
Arminian Methodism. The third Ohio Conference reported a
membership of 5660, another net increase of about seventy-five
percent. It was thus that Reform kept "going down." Rev.
William Reeves and his wife Hannah, both local preachers
from the English Methodists, began their career of fidelity to
American Reform and loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ in the
summer of 1831. At the close of its first volume the Corre-

1 After many years' service he retired and settled in Cincinnati about 1820-22.
He was subsequently expelled from the Ohio Conference, the records showing no
other charge than " contumacy." He appealed to the General Conference of
1824, which confirmed his expulsion. He then entered the Reformed Methodist
movement of the Stillwell school, and did much to organize a society of this kind
in Ohio. One of the charges alleged against the Union Society of Cincinnati was
that it permitted William Burke to assemble with them. Matters continued thus
until 1829-30, when to the surprise of himself and friends he was visited and
coddled by Bishop M'Kendree, and by friendly overtures brought back into asso-
ciation with the M. E. Church, without his ever making any " confession, con-
trition," or " receiving proper trial " as a probationer. It was one of the methods
employed to prevent influential men from aiding the Radicals. The Church went
back to him lest the Burkeites should secede. He was employed as one of the reg-
ular Cincinnati preachers, but never absolved from his "expulsion" by official
act. It was not Christian charity but church policy ; he had acquired considerable
property, practically owned the Reform Church he built, and had no heirs. See
Methodist Correspondent, vol. I. p. 90. See also humorous anecdote of Snethen
and Burke while spectators together at the M. E. General Conference of 1836
at Cincinnati, in Brown's " Itinerant Life," p. 263.

282 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

spondent had about thirteen hundred subscribers. The editor and
publisher was somewhat involved in its publication, and retired
from the position.

The Book Committee of Baltimore informed W S. Stockton of
his election as editor, but he declined. It was then tendered to
his son Thomas H., who also declined, no positive reason being
given in either case. It is a tradition that the restraints of a
Book Committee were objectionable to men of such pronounced
individuality as made it impossible, despite the almost patroniz-
ing attitude of the Church, to keep either of them, for a life
tenure, within connectional metes and bounds. It was finally-
arranged with Gamaliel Bailey, M.D., son of the veteran Metho-
dist itinerant of that name, to take editorial charge, with John
Jolly Harrod as publisher. The Mutual Rights and Methodist
Protestant, the last name printed in capitals, black letter, and
soon received as the abridged title, was issued January 7, 1831,
the subscription list, etc., of the Mutual Bights and Christian
Intelligencer being transferred to it.1 It was a large quarto, four-
page weekly, at $2.50 a year. Notice is given in the second
number that the religious, and not the controversial, side was
to be made paramount in the new paper. It also contained a
brief obituary of Mrs. Susan H. Snethen, aged fifty-three, who
departed November 10, 1830. She died in Indiana, whither

1 A controversy occurred in the summer of 1898 between the Christian Advocate
of New York and Zion's Herald of Boston as to priority, each claiming to be " the
oldest Methodist paper in the United States," but as the Herald by its own showing
only dates from 1823 and the Advocate from 1826, the genealogy of the Methodist
Protestant makes it plain that it and not either of those carries the palm as the oldest
Methodist newspaper in this country of continuous publication. It was the Wesley an
Repository from 1821 to 1824, the Mutual Rights from 1824 to 1828, and the Mutual
Rights and Christian Intelligencer from 1828 to 1830, when it became the Mutual
Rights and Methodist Protestant, the latter title soon flying at the masthead alone,
where it has been nailed for sixty-eight years. So this paper legitimately dates from
1821, two years before Zion's Herald and five years before the Christian Advocate.
The Advocate for November 24, 1898, quite voluminously disputes this claim prin-
cipally on the ground that the Depository was a monthly and the Mutual Rights
also, and that its claim and that of Zion's Herald is as "a iveekly Methodist
paper." Well, so qualified, that does settle it, but it cannot be unsettled that the
Methodist Protestant is a successor of the Mutual Rights and Wesleyan Reposi-
tory, inasmuch as a moral certainty is established from contemporary evidence
that the subscription lists and proprietary rights of both came to the Methodist
Protestant as such, and were both discontinued one after the other in the succes-
sion until the last appeared. This makes it as claimed the " oldest Methodist
newspaper in the country." The only thing that could invalidate it would be for
the Advocate or the Herald to show that either of them succeeded to the subscrip-
tion list, etc., of the Methodist Magazine, a monthly, originated in 1818, and that
it was discontinued in favor of either of them. This cannot be done.

THE OFFICIAL PAPER AND CONTENTS 283

her husband, Eev. Nicholas Snethen, had removed the previous
month of May. Its literary and religious tone was very high.
Dr. Bailey did not take charge until the sixth number. It is
worth passing notice that T. S. Arthur, the writer of world-
wide celebrity in after years, and whose family was of the new
Church, resident in Baltimore, offered to it perhaps his first
youthful contribution, which was declined with encouraging
words. The proceedings of the Convention with the Con-
stitution and Discipline ran through the opening numbers.
Colonization was the favorite theory in that day of both pro-
and anti-slavery men. Bascom was agent for the Society for
several years, and the subject was discussed by the editor and
others. Both the Pitt Street (East Baltimore station) and St.
John's, Liberty Street, were opened on Sabbath for these meet-
ings. At the close of the first volume, Gamaliel Bailey re-
signed and removed to Washington, D. C, where he established
and conducted for some years the National Era, an antislavery
paper of great ability and temperate discussion.

To show the spirit of the times, the Genesee Annual Confer-
ence, which met in the town of Ogden, Monroe County, N. Y. ,
February 5, 1831, accepting their constitutional privilege, adopted
the following resolve, " That all the colored members belonging
to the Church, within the bounds of this Conference, be entitled
to the same rights of suffrage and membership with the white
members." February 3, 1831, F. L. B. Shaver, George B. Barr,
Thomas Spragen, Bobert Comtchfied, David H. Boyd, Adolphus
C. Shaver, Hervy Garrison, Philip Bohr, and Christopher Bode-
fer adopted the Constitution, and withdrew from the Methodist
Episcopal Church at Abingdon, Va. Several of these names are
historic. The Pennsylvania Conference, April 5, 1831, reported
111 preaching-places, including six meeting-houses in the Dis-
trict, and 983 members. It convened in Philadelphia. The New
York Conference reported, April 7, 1831, a membership of 988,
net increase 428, or nearly one hundred per cent. Shinn and
most of the leading Beform writers resumed their pens in the
Methodist Protestant. It contained several articles on Education
Societies by " Presbyter," H. B. Bascom. McCaine, as " Veritas,"
reopened, by permission, the Beform controversy on its merits.
" A General Home Missionary Society " for the whole connection,
was organized at St. John's, Baltimore, August 4, 1831, with
officers selected from every section of the Church, Dr. Francis
Waters, Chairman, and J. J. Harrod, Secretary. A great revi-

284 BISTORT OF METHODIST REFORM

val at this St. John's occurred a few months prior, when fifty
seekers at once filled the altar and the pews. Numerous camp-
meetings in Maryland and elsewhere. Dr. Waters's Seminary,
Baltimore, received Divinity students. Rev. Eobert Sparks, an
old ex-itinerant, and one of the first Reformers of Queen Anne's
County, Md., died August, 1831. Rev. Thomas H. Stockton was
appointed Agent of the " General Missionary Society," September
25, 1831.

The second Georgia Annual Conference was organized at
Sweringen's camp-ground, Twiggs County, July 29, 1831, Eppes
Tucker, President, Richard Blount, Secretary. Ministers : A. G.
Brewer, Thomas Gardner, James Hodge, Harrison Jones, James
R. Lowrey, Henry Saxon, James R. Swain, B. Sweringen,
Eppes Tucker, Ethel Tucker, Sr., Robert P. Ward, Charles P.
Witherspoon, Robert W V. Wynne, Charles Williamson. Lay-
delegates: Richard A. Blount, Philip Causey, Jacob W. Cobb,
Maniel Collier, W. P. Gilbert, Charles Kennon, Arthur Lucas,
Taliaferro Moore, Geo. W. Ray, James Shields, James Swer-
ingen, Robert Tucker, Ethel Tucker, Jr., Josiah Whitehurst.
" Laicus," W. S. Stockton, furnished a series on " The Elementary
Principles," explanatory and defensive. R. B. Thomson and
Lewis E. Cosby, both of the Virginia Conference and historic
names, appear as correspondents. The first volume closed with
the December 30th number. It had heralded prosperity for the
new Church in every direction, and its circulation could not have
been short of twenty-five hundred, with the West largely sup-
porting the Correspondent. Societies were organized far beyond
the ministerial supply. A call was made in one of the numbers
for fifty preachers, as an emergency supply ; but they could not
be had.

About this time J. J. Harrod, one of the fast friends of Bas-
com, wrote him soliciting his help and formal union with the new
Church ; whose cause he still continued to advocate in a quiet
way, as his membership was yet in the Methodist Episcopal
Church. He made answer that he would come out and cast
his fortunes with the Methodist Protestant Church, if he could be
guaranteed a support.1 It is safe to aver that on this condition

1 The authority for this statement is Rev. L. W Bates, D.D., of the Maryland
Conference, whose ministry dates from 1840, and who knew Harrod as his pastor
in Baltimore. He recently informed the writer that he had the statement from
Harrod's own lips. The writer had the same statement some years a so from the
late Rev. Thomas McCormick, who was acquainted intimately with Harmd.

STRUGGLES OF THE NEW CHURCH 285

an abundant supply could have been secured from the ministry
of the old Church, few of whom had such financial necessities as
Bascom. Pressed with debt, a large family of his father's depen-
dent upon him, his marital engagement postponed from year to
year for the same reason, without habits of economy, those who
understood the case uttered no censure for his hesitation. As a
support, not even the pastorate of the old Church, though he could
command the best, sufficed for him. Hence his acceptance of
the Colonization Agency at this time; even this salary was sup-
plemented by the lecture field, as opportunity offered, to replen-
ish a constantly depleted purse. But he had censorious critics,
and they stung him into a gradual alienation from his Reform
friends ; but not from its principles, as shall yet appear. The
new Church membership had their financial ability tasked to the
extreme, in church building in addition to the meagre salaries they
could raise for the preachers, who, in this heroic struggle, ac-
cepted a moiety of what they should have received, and could
have commanded, in the old Church and elsewhere. Dr. John
S. Reese of Maryland abandoned the promise of a lucrative medi-
cal practice, for a young man, to enter this ministry, and so with
many others in various sections, whose adhesion to principle and
their self-immolation the page of history must never cease to
mention. Yet with all these almost crushing disabilities and
hamperings the new Church of lay-representation grew within a
year to more than double its numbers, and was stretching out in
every direction, to the joy of its friends and the ill-concealed
chagrin of its enemies. The new Church was not only born, but
gave unmistakable indications of a thrifty childhood and man-
hood. It vexed its opponents because it would not die. That
doughty, but brusque itinerant of the West, Peter Cartwright,
whose vocabulary was noted for its choice epithets, dubbed it
"that radical brat." Even the ensuing General Conference of
the parent body, through its Pastoral Address, descended from
its dignity to fling a false statement into the teeth of the young
Church, as shall be presently shown.

The second volume of the Methodist Protestant was edited
impersonally under the Book Committee. It continued to in-
crease in circulation, its pages filled with revival news and of
newly organized churches. W S. Stockton, Asa Shinn, and
others, lead in contributions. As the Annual Conferences met
they reported from fifty to one hundred per cent increase of
members. Moses Scott wrote often from the work at Connells-

286 HISTORY OF METHODIST REFORM

ville, Pa. Rev. James Hunter of North Carolina, one of the truest
and earliest Reformers, passed to his reward in heaven December
5, 1831. Rev. J. Cochran, a local Elder, died April 15, 1831.
Rev. Swain Swift of North Carolina, passed away October 8, 1831.
The Book Committee issued Mosheim's "Church History" as a
venture, which, while it was helpful in setting forth a true ac-
count of Primitive Church government, proved a disastrous finan-
cial scheme; the first of a series in the history of the Book
Concern, involving individuals and the corporation. Ezekiel
Hall, one of the early and stanchest of lay-Reformers, passed
away 1831. " A distinguished itinerant preacher " of the Metho-
dist Episcopal Church, having asserted that a marriage ceremony
performed by a minister of the new Church was invalid, a suit at
law followed for the slanderous imputation, and he was mulcted
by the Supreme Court of the State in $287 as damages. See
Protestant, Vol. II. p. 205. The pastors of the two Methodist
Protestant churches in Philadelphia, where the General Confer-
ence of the Methodist Episcopal Church met, in May, 1832, ten-
dered, by written invitation, the pulpits to its ministers, but it
refused to send a Sabbath supply.

In its Pastoral Address, of which Rev. William Winans was
Chairman of the committee reporting, three paragraphs were given
to the Reformers. It says : " Aroused by an attack which threat-
ened the integrity of those institutions, we carefully reexamined
them; and having satisfied ourselves of their correctness and
utility we, with our whole charge, have embraced them the more
firmly. . . . Seldom has an enterprise resulted in a more com-
plete failure than that in which, at the time alluded to above, a
party, under the denomination of reformers, labored to change the
economy of our Church, or, failing of that purpose, to overturn
the Church itself. . . . We consider it, as now placed, beyond
question that our system of government is too highly-appreciated
by ourselves, as well as too firmly supported by the hand of
heaven, to be shaken by designing men." Not through the
printed Minutes only, but the columns of the Christian Advocate,
with its twenty-five thousand subscribers, these unchristian and
untruthful declarations received a wide dissemination. It aroused
the Reformers, and a public meeting was called at St. John's,
Baltimore, to answer the slanderous allegations. It was not con-
vened until July 27, 1832, that patience and good temper might
not be unduly taxed, — Asa Shinn, Chairman, Francis Waters,
Secretary. Notwithstanding, the "Review," afterward also pub-

OFFICIAL ATTACK UPON THE NEW CHURCH 287

lished by the thousand and scattered broadcast as an antidote,
was a most scathing one. It covers three pages of the Methodist
Protestant, and leaves nothing unsaid to a complete refutation.
The sharpest sentences in it are these : " Their minions have been
harping on this string, with untiring perseverance, during the
last four years, at all points of the compass ; the bishops carefully
brought forward the same favorite theme, and placed it in the
front of their Address, at the opening of the session; and, to cap
the climax, the whole Conference published a Pastoral Address,
roundly affirming that ' seldom has an enterprise resulted in a
more complete failure, ' while their own case is made to ' flourish
more vigorously than ever.'" It is one of a hundred instances
showing that the Eeformers seldom were the aggressors in revival
of controversy; but, as now, they repelled false accusation and
acted on the defensive, content to be left alone in their evan-
gelistic work; the writer has already expressed the conviction
that they carried their pacific policy to an unprofitable extreme in
denominational interest. It was followed in the Protestant by a
masterful series, from the pen of Shinn, "A Plea for the Metho-
dist Protestant Church." George Brown also came to the rescue :
" The late General Conference having wantonly and deliberately
assailed the character, motives, and conduct of the Eeformers,
thereby evincing an inflexible purpose to renew and perpetuate
hostilities, the only alternative left the latter is silence or defence
... we have, therefore, determined on the latter."

Among the most active evangelistic workers of the Eeformers
must be mentioned, Adjet M'Guire of the West and Eli Henkle
of the East. Camp-meetings through the summer months were
everywhere held, and a harvest of souls gathered into the new
Church. "William Price, a stanch Eeformer of the laity in
North Carolina, passed away July 17, 1832. It is pleasant to
note the first departure from the proscriptive policy of the mother
church in the Christian conduct of Eev. William Barnes, the
brilliant, if eccentric, itinerant of the Philadelphia Conference,
who, in Centreville, Md., denounced bigotry and invited Eeform-
ers and others to the Lord's Supper. It was seconded by the
church inviting Hon. P. B. Hopper, who held a local preacher's
license in the new Church and effectively preached a simple gos-
. pel, to occupy their pulpit on a given Sabbath afternoon, which
was accepted, the two churches in the town uniting in fraternal
and Christian worship together, September 27, 1832. Thomas
Mummy of Baltimore, a steel-true lay -Eeformer, died September,

288 HISTORY OF METHODIST BEFOBM

1832, as also his wife about the same time, one of the heroic
Reform women. John Eliason of Georgetown, D. C, and Rev.
William Hanna of Easton, Md., both early Reformers, died of
cholera, which was then prevailing throughout the United States.
Snethen was active in forming "Education Associations," the
culture of the Church lying near his heart ; but the method did
not succeed. Rev. Jesse Morris of Georgia, one of the earliest
Reformers, died April 27, 1832. "B. H. R.," a signature stand-
ing for Beale H. Richardson, appeared regularly from 1831-32
with miscellaneous, literary, and religious articles, and these
were continued at intervals for more than fifty years. He was
a prominent layman of St. John's, Baltimore. Bascom, a " Pres-
byter," commends Shinn's "Plan of Salvation," 1832. As indi-
cating the deep prejudice excited among all classes of the old
Church against "Radicalism," it must be noted that one of their
popular churches in Philadelphia petitioned the General Confer-
ence to rescind the disciplinary law that all churches must be
built with "free seats." Though utterly irrelevant they say,
"There is no radicalism, either directly or indirectly, concerned
in this memorial; and that if we supposed it would have the re-
motest tendency to promote radical views or principles, we would
give it to the moles and bats, and still push on under the old sys-
tem and do our best to sustain it." Comment is unnecessary.

The action of the General Conference of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church was a damper upon the hundreds who had recoiled
under the Bond-Emory defection and persecution. They said, to
come out is a sacrifice more than can be made. Surely the Gen-
eral Conference will take steps looking to governmental changes,
such as are manifestly demanded, on its own motion. What it
did, was to extinguish the last hope of this class ; and not a few
in various places quietly withdrew, and sheltered their Christian
manhood in the new Church. Henry B. Bascom was a member
of this General Conference. Nothing was left undone to patron-
ize him by the authorities. It is said that a respectable minority
made objection to parts of the Pastoral Address ; but it was carried
by a large vote. The Episcopal election resulted in the choice
of James O. Andrew of the South by 140, and John Emory of
Maryland by 135 votes out of 223. The closing session was pre-
sided over by the latter, the only time he occupied the Chair in
a General Conference; before 1836 "God took him." Bis